Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EDUCATION BILL (FINANCIAL PROPOSALS)

Mr. Logan: I beg to present a Petition from the Executive of the Liverpool Arch-diocesan Branch of the Union of Catholic Mothers, backed by 94,000 signatures. They wish to protest against the financial proposals for Catholic schools as set out in the Education Bill and ask that provision shall be made in the Bill by which these injustices shall be removed.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRICKMAKING INDUSTRY (WAGES)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the average wages of men employed in brick-making now and in 1939; what recent negotiations have taken place between the employers and the trade unions over wages and with what results; and is he aware of the dissatisfaction that prevails amongst the men.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Separate figures for brick-making are not available. The average weekly earnings for all classes of men employed in the manufacture of building bricks, roofing and flooring tiles, chimney pots, etc., in the first week of July, 1943, were 99s., the average hours of work being 52. The corresponding figures for October, 1938, the latest pre-war date for which figures are available, were 61s. 8d. and 50.3 hours. A dispute between employers and workpeople in the brick-making industry on a claim for increased wages was reported to me last month. This was referred for settlement to the National Arbitration Tribunal, who are hearing the case at an early date.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in some parts of Durham, brickworkers are very discontented

because of the delay in coming to a decision? Will he do whatever is in his power to expedite the decision of the tribunal?

Mr. Bevin: The tribunal is taking this matter in its order. I cannot put it ahead of other cases.

Mr. Mathers: Do these figures include Scotland?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Thorne: Can my right hon. Friend give the number of hand brickmakers and machine brickmakers?

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry I have not got those figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (HARDSHIP) COMMITTEES

Mr. Bull: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider, on grounds of health and hardship, having cases for exemption from military service reviewed by committees more localised as, if this procedure were adopted, results would be more satisfactory and there would be fewer cases of attempted evasion of war service.

Mr. Bevin: Medical boards and Military Service (Hardship) Committees are already widely localised, and I do not understand in what way the establishment of additional machinery of this sort would prevent attempted evasion of war service. Perhaps my hon. Friend could let me know more precisely what he has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Minister of Labour how many building trades' employees have registered at employment exchanges during the last month.

Mr. Bevin: I will write to my hon. Friend in a few days and give him such statistics as are available.

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Minister of Labour if he will expedite the erection of houses for immediate post-war occupation and, as during 1925 to 1929 in England and Wales there were erected 2,335,600 dwellings without State assistance by private builders as compared with 942,107 by local authorities, will he


arrange to enable private builders, particularly the smaller firms, to operate speedily in the immediate construction of dwelling-houses; and, to this end, will he cease calling up the principal and employees of one-man businesses in this industry.

Mr. Bevin: The first and second parts of the Question are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. For some months past I have not been calling up for the Forces principals of one-man businesses in the building industry, and cases of transfer to other work have been quite exceptional. I am not clear what is meant by "employees of one-man businesses," but what I have said would apply generally if there is only one worker concerned, whether as employer or employee.

Mr. Leach: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the misleading nature of the comparison made in the Question between privately-built houses and those built by local authorities, in view of the fact that local authorities regularly get out of the way of private enterprise, when they ought to be doing their job?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (REINSTATEMENT OBLIGATION)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in cases where a person was employed in a factory managed by a company on behalf of a Government department, the agent or the principal is regarded as having been the employer for purposes of reinstatement.

Mr. Bevin: It is not possible to give a specific answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend as the answer must necessarily depend upon the precise terms of the arrangements made between the company and the Government Department concerned. I may, however, remind my hon. Friend that the reinstatement obligations imposed by the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill rest upon the "former employer" as that expression is defined in Clause 7 of the Bill and that questions as to who is the former employer in any particular case will fall to be decided by the Reinstatement Committees and the Umpire under Clause 9.

Sir J. Mellor: What will happen to people who joined the Forces from shadow factories?

Mr. Bevin: I think all those questions had better be raised when we get to the Committee stage of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — YEOVIL CORPORATION OFFICIAL (DISMISSAL)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. F. A. Penny, employed by the Yeovil Corporation Gas Department for many years as works superintendent was required in June, 1940, to sign a declaration that he had not been since the outbreak of war a member of or actively engaged in support of the Peace Pledge Union, the British Union, the Communist Party or any other organisation whose objects are not in sympathy with the present aims of the British Government; that Mr. Penny, who could have replied in the negative, refused, considering such a declaration against public policy, and was dismissed on 26th June, 1940, with loss of superannuation right; and if he will secure this man's reinstatement in his previous employment, which was governed by the Essential Works Order.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The first Essential Work Order was not made until March, 1941, and I am not in a position to take action in respect of a dismissal which occurred in June, 1940.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into this case, which is clearly one of persecution of a man because he holds certain opinions?

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I had no power to intervene before the Order was made.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, SEAHAM (MINEWORKERS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons signing the unemployed register at the employment exchanges serving the parliamentary division of Seaham; how many of those signing are mine-workers; and why these men are unemployed.

Mr. Bevin: I am obtaining the desired information and will write to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Books (Paper Supply)

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consult the Minister of Supply with a view to securing a further release of paper for the printing of educational books used in schools.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) on 4th November last, a copy of which I am sending him, to which at present I am not in a position to add anything. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter is being kept carefully under review.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the effect of fixing the paper ration by weight operates against school books, first, because it is impossible to use smaller type and margins in school books which are severely economical in peace-time; secondly, because the books are, largely, reprints and the type is fixed in plates, and, thirdly, because it pays a publisher to produce new 8s. 6d. popular books; and will he therefore reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler: We do our best for school books. There is a great shortage of paper, but I will bear in mind the obviously informed opinion that the hon. Gentleman has given to the House and will do my best.

Mr. N. Maclean: Why is it, if there is such a shortage of paper, that very shoddy novels are allowed to be issued?

Mr. Butler: I think I had better confine myself to my responsibility for school books.

Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. Gentleman any control over what is printed on this paper?

Joint Education Boards

Viscount Suirdale: asked the President of the Board of Education to which local authorities, other than those of counties and county boroughs, is it intended that Section 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Education Bill shall apply.

Mr. Butler: Paragraph 5 of Part I of the 1st Schedule would enable a joint

education board to be set up for the boroughs of Peterborough and Cambridge and one or more of the adjoining areas. My noble Friend will understand that the Minister is precluded from making an order establishing a joint board except after a local inquiry, unless the councils concerned consent to the making of the order.

Hadow Scheme (Re-organisation)

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education what percentage of schools have been reorganised under the Hadow Scheme.

Mr. Butler: On 31st March, 1938, the latest date for which information is available, 60.2 per cent. of the public elementary school departments had been reorganised.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend order an investigation into the reasons why 60 per cent. of schools have organised, and the other 40 per cent. have not?

Mr. Butler: There is a variety of reasons and there are differences between voluntary and council schools. It would be difficult to sum up the whole position in a short answer.

Mr. Lipson: Would it be true to say that the chief reason is finance?

Mr. Butler: There is always the case of the human will as well as finance, and there are certain other difficulties. I should not like to confine it to one particular matter.

School Medical Treatment (Charges)

Mr. Salt: asked the President of the Board of Education if it is the policy of his Department to make a profit on the supply of surgical appliances and dentistry.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Under Section 81 of the Education Act, 1921, the amount that may be recovered from parents for the medical treatment of their children may not exceed the cost of the treatment. The charges normally made to parents for surgical appliances and for dental treatment are much less than the cost to the Authority.

Mr. Salt: If I bring evidence that considerably more is charged to parents than is charged by the maker, will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I hope the hon. Member will send me any information at his disposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Operatives

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with the Minister of Supply and other Ministers concerned with a view to releasing the hundreds of thousands of building operatives engaged on war work as soon as the state of the war makes a contraction of war production possible.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I can assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter which the Government have very much in mind.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Is it not a fact that a high proportion of the workers in the building trades union were ordered to go into war industries and that that will be a favourable factor?

Mr. Willink: That is certainly so, and it is very much in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the speeches he made when he was a back bencher about the need for speeding up the provision of houses, and will he try to relate promise with performance?

Mr. Willink: I have looked at them again.

Mr. Shinwell: Since my right hon. and learned Friend has perused his speeches, has he profited thereby?

Ex-Servicemen's Houses (Possession)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the early introduction of legislation to enable members of the armed forces and others who, owing to service abroad or compulsory evacuation, have been compelled to let their houses, to obtain possession of such houses if the period of the letting has expired and the owner requires the house for his own use.

Mr. Willink: The Rent Restrictions Acts contain provisions designed to facilitate the recovery of possession of houses by owners who require them for their own occupation. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, I have recently

appointed, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, an Inter-Departmental Committee to review the whole field of rent control, including the working of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and to advise whether any and, if so, what changes are necessary. I could not therefore undertake to introduce legislation to amend the Acts in any particular respect while the Committee's inquiries are in progress. Their attention has, however, been specially drawn to the point raised in the Question.

Major Lloyd: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an increasing number of glaring instances of Service men coming back and trying to get possession of their little homes, but finding it impossible to do so, and having to take places as near as possible to their homes?

Mr. Willink: I am well aware of their difficulty, and I am doing my best to meet it by all means.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now make some statement on the progress of the farm cottage scheme; and if he can make a pronouncement of the details of the scheme for further development in the future.

Mr. Willink: By the end of January, 244 cottages were finished. Acceptable tenders had been received and approved for another 2,594. Of these 2,358 were under construction and 1,467 were roofed in or at a later stage. The answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir".

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that there is really any co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture; and how is at that would-be tenants are not aware whether they can have cottages or not? Is it not necessary to have this matter tightened up?

Mr. Willink: That seems to be a wholly different matter from that raised by the Question.

Mr. Shinwell: As it is nearly two years since my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor promised 3,000 agricultural cottages, why is it that only 244 have been provided?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend knows the difficulties of war-time. I really cannot, by way of Question and Answer, go into the difficulties arising in this matter.

Sites (Rural Areas)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether local authorities in rural areas will be encouraged to prepare building sites this summer in anticipation of the Government's reconstruction programme.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I hope shortly to send a circular to local authorities explaining the details of the arrangements which are being made for the preparation of sites and will send my hon. Friend a Copy.

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: In sending out that circular will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that no sites should be prepared that have not water and electricity available?

Requisitioned Houses, London

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health, approximately how many empty houses in London and Greater London have been requisitioned for, and occupied by, families other than those directly affected by enemy action; and how many requisitioned houses are now occupied by such families.

Mr. Willink: 2,172 houses have been requisitioned in the London Civil Defence Region and occupied by families other than those made homeless by enemy action, and a further 203 houses have been requisitioned but are not yet occupied.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some local authorities complain that they have not sufficient powers to secure other empty houses for this purpose; and will he consider extending their powers in this, direction?

Mr. Willink: The policy set out in the circulars gives a good deal of power, and the local authorities are getting ahead at varying rates, but I do not propose any change at the moment.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult with local authorities, because many of them have a real grievance and a desire to secure more houses but they cannot do so?

Northern Ireland (Materials)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Production whether, as concrete houses are unsuitable for the climate of Northern Ireland, he will arrange that essential materials for the erection of houses in Northern Ireland, of the required type, will be made available at the earliest moment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): While I cannot agree with my hon. Friend as to the unsuitability of concrete houses for Northern Ireland, can assure him that my right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider representations that special materials are indispensable for particular regions or types of buildings.

Dr. Little: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in Northern Ireland there is a large supply of bricks available, and that more will be produced as required? What is required is the grant of essential materials such as timber, slate, and such like, to enable us to use these bricks in the erection of houses, and we hope that these will be made available.

Mr. MacLaren: Why not demand Home Rule?

Oral Answers to Questions — INSTITUTION INMATES (POCKET MONEY)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health if he will now introduce legislation to enable public assistance committees to make small grants of pocket money to penniless persons under 65 years of age in public assistance institutions on account of prolonged ill- health.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 2nd December last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Dr. Thomas: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman re-consider the matter as it does seem a little mean?

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Health whether further Government grants will be available towards expenses incurred by local authorities in


the extension of rural water supplies; and whether he has any statement to make as to long-term water policy with a view to securing an adequate survey of the country's resources and planned and economic utilisation thereof.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. The Government propose as part of their general reconstruction programme to introduce legislation empowering them to give further Exchequer assistance for the extension of piped water supplies in rural localities; and I hope it will be possible during the current Session to introduce this legislation which will also extend to sewerage in such areas. I propose also to lay a White Paper as soon as possible outlining the Government's general proposals with regard to water. These will include provision for an adequate scientific assessment of resources and for the control and co-ordination of their use and distribution.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider including in the White Paper consideration of the Milne Report, especially the third report on Rivers Boards?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. This is rather a separate matter from the question of water supply, but the third report is under consideration, and will be dealt with in the White Paper.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does my right hon. and learned Friend anticipate that the White Paper will be available before the probable early Debate on the Private Water Bills that are before the House this Session?

Mr. Willink: I have no information when these Debates, if they do take place, will take place.

Sir. H. Williams: Apart from that, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that he can lay the White Paper soon?

Year.
Deaths from Tuberculosis.
New Cases of Tuberculosis.


England and Wales.
Scotland.
England and Wales.
Scotland.


1938
…
26,176
3,431
58,093
7,565


1939
…
25,623
3,526
53,835
7,097


1940
…
28,144
4,003
54,929
7,722


1941
…
28,670
4,174
59,976
8,294


1942
…
25,547
3,998
60,732
9,048

Mr. Turton: Will the White Paper cover only schemes by local authorities, or will it cover, as well, schemes by persons other than local authorities?

Mr. Willink: I think that my hon. Friend must await the White Paper on that subject.

Mr. Molson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the opposition to these Private Bills is due to the feeling of hon. Members that the matter ought to be dealt with on national lines? Could he, therefore, give some indication when the White Paper will be published?

Mr. Willink: I do not want to pledge myself too closely, but my object is to lay the White Paper at, approximately, the same time as the introduction of the Bill I have indicated. It will deal with the whole matter on national lines.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculosis (Statistics)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any recent comparative figures to show whether tuberculosis mortality and new cases are increasing, decreasing or remaining stationary in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Willink: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table, in which the particulars relating to Scotland have been supplied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, gives comparative figures for all forms of tuberculosis in recent years.

Venereal Diseases

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health the approximate number of new cases of venereal disease notified and treated during 1943; how many of these were men and women, respectively; whether he has any information showing the estimated percentage of the population that has been afflicted with a venereal disease during the past 10 years; whether the extent of such disease is growing or diminishing; and whether the Regulation issued in recent years respecting notification has had any appreciable effect.

Mr. Willink: Figures are not yet available for the year 1943 of the number of new cases of venereal diseases treated at local authority clinics. These diseases are not notifiable. The information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question is therefore not available. The incidence of these diseases has increased since the beginning of the war but the rate of increase has recently diminished. I assume that the last part of the Question refers to Defence Regulation 33B, though this did not require statutory notification. If so, the answer is "Yes, Sir." I would on this point refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Debate on the Adjournment on 20th January and, on the general question, to the information and statistics about venereal disease contained in the Summary Report of the Ministry of Health for the year ended 31st March, 1943.

Mr. Sorensen: If that information does not cover the point I raised in this Question, would it not be advisable to try and secure the information?

Mr. Willink: For the reasons I have given in this answer, the information as asked by my hon. Friend is simply not available.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that Regulation 33B has had any appreciable effect, in view of the fact that action under the Regulation was taken against only two men and 64 women up to June, 1943?

Mr. Willink: The point raised by the hon. Lady was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion to which I referred.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being asked this Question, and many Members who are here now were not present then, yet he tells the House that the Regulation has had an appreciable effect.

Mr. Logan: In order to prevent the spread of this disease in Liverpool, is it possible to put a curfew into operation for young girls who frequent the streets at night?

Mr. Willink: That is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions what steps are taken by his Department in the case of disabled men discharged from the Forces unable to follow any employment, without pension or allowance from his Department because their disability was neither caused nor aggravated by military service, who are entitled to small weekly sums, or none, by way of disablement benefit from their approved societies, who are beyond rehabilitation and who must, therefore, resort to Poor Law relief or become street pedlars.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): With one exception I have no power to deal with the case in which the disablement is unconnected with service. The exception is that of a member of the Forces who is under treatment which requires to be continued on discharge. In this case, although the disablement is neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, special allowances may be paid whilst treatment is being continued for a period not exceeding 26 weeks from the date of discharge. The rare case which is beyond rehabilitation does not differ from those arising exceptionally among the civil population, for which the general social service schemes are intended to provide.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Has the Minister ever considered the real problem arising here, which is that, at the end of every war, ex-soldiers have been compelled, because they had no income from any source, to become beggars and pedlars? Is he aware that Members of all parties, and the whole nation, do not want to see that occurring again? Can he do anything about it?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of that position. I have it in mind. I am as anxious as anyone in the country to avoid these men becoming pedlars or street musicians. We shall do everything we can to assist these men, so that they can be rehabilitated and trained to do a useful job of work.. In the very rare cases I have mentioned, that is a matter which will have to receive close consideration.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the circumstances in which there is sent to ex-Servicemen a printed form stating that the application for a pension has been considered and refused, prior to any such application being made; and in relation to a certain case in the Midland region, particulars whereof have been furnished to him, when and by whom the application was made, which was stated to have been considered and declined.

Sir W. Womersley: When a member of the Forces is discharged on medical grounds his papers are referred automatically to my Department for consideration, and no formal claim to pension is required. Except where the papers show beyond doubt that the member does not consider himself entitled to pension it is clearly in the interest of all that prompt information as to the Ministry's decision should be sent, together with notice of the right of appeal when that decision is unfavourable. By no means all of these cases are rejected, however, and pensions are awarded in many. This procedure avoids correspondence and belated claims; it should cause no inconvenience to those who did not wish to claim since no action need be taken by them.

Major Lyons: Could not the form have been more happily worded? As it is, it indicates to the man that his case has been turned down before it has ever been put, and before his statement has ever been made to the Ministry. Will the Minister be good enough also to answer the second part of my Question?

Sir W. Womersley: We instituted this procedure in the interests of the men themselves, and this is the first time I have had a complaint about it. Indeed, I have had many letters thanking my Department for having considered these

claims, particularly in the cases where the pension has been awarded. I do not think that it would be wise to alter this procedure, in the best interests of the men themselves.

Major Lyons: May I have an answer to the second part of the Question on the paper?

Sir W. Womersley: I think I have answered that Question completely.

Major Lyons: On a point of Order. May I ask for a reply on the specific case mentioned in the Question?

Hon. Members: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-POLICE CONSTABLE, IPSWICH

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that ex-constable Perrins was dismissed from Ipswich police force in October, 1941, arising out of charges of theft made by the chief constable; that Perrins emphatically denied these charges, of which no proof was ever offered; that since that time he has tried by every, means to get the matter considered in an open public court; and will he give this man the right to clear his character from these charges.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): After an investigation by the watch committee of a disciplinary charge against Mr. Perrins, the committee found the charge proved and called upon him to resign. He appealed against the decision and I arranged for an inquiry to be held by an experienced barrister and one of the inspectors of constabulary. At this inquiry, which took the form of a re-hearing of the charge, Mr. Perrins was represented by counsel. After considering the report of the inquiry I dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, Mr. Perrins applied to the divisional court for leave to apply for an order of certiorari, and his application was refused. I am quite unable to accept the statement that no proof was offered to support the charges, and there is no further action I can take.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the experience of the John Syme case, would the Minister not consider that this man, who has a charge of theft placed against him, should have been tried in an open public


court, instead of the responsibilities and duties of the public court being taken over by the watch committee? Will he not now try to give this man the elementary right of public trial, on the charge of theft made by the chief constable?

Mr. Morrison: I have no power to order a public trial. The matter was one for the watch committee and the point is one which watch committees should take into account. In fact, there was an inquiry, in which he did not succeed, and he made an appeal to the divisional court on an issue related to the point which my hon. Friend has raised. In the divisional court his case failed.

Mr. Gallacher: Has not the Minister power over a watch committee that takes upon itself the rights of judge, jury, etc., and constitutes itself a secret court?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. The hon. Member will learn one of these days that this country is largely run by local self-government and not by the dictatorship of Ministers. This is a democratic country, a fact of which the hon. Member takes full advantage.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of that appalling answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on another occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PRITT:
27. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police have been employed from time to time in connection with the house arrest of Sir Oswald Mosley since he took up his residence at Ship-ton-under-Wychwood.

Commander Locker-Lampson: On a point of Order. As the hon. and learned Member is not here to ask Question No. 27 and as many hon. Members desire to hear the answer, would it be possible——

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member is not here, his Question cannot be asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATION 18B (DETAINEES)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the regulations restricting letters written by persons detained under Regulation 18B to

two a week can now be amended so as to admit of their writing a greater number provided it is done at their own expense.

Mr. H. Morrison: The facilities are the same both for persons detained under this Regulation and for aliens who are interned. Camp commanders have discretion to allow additional and longer letters for special purposes and this discretion is exercised liberally. Letters to Members of Parliament, Government Departments and Advisory Committees are allowed in addition to the two weekly letters and are not limited as to length. One of the considerations to be kept in mind is that any increase in the number of personal letters permitted would throw additional labour on the censorship staff, and I do not think the existing facilities are inadequate.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision, in view of the fact that there are so many fewer people detained under this Regulation, and that it is really punitive to prevent them from writing more than two letters a week? There have been complaints, as my right hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot see that there is any great grievance. As I have indicated, we do allow letters in special cases, and there is great freedom in writing to Members of Parliament, the Advisory Committees and so on. In these circumstances, I do not think that the rule is unreasonable.

Mr. Stokes: If the right hon. Gentleman were detained under Regulation 18B, would he consider it fair not to be able to write more than two letters a week?

Sir H. Williams: Why have certain camp commandants told these people that they must not typewrite letters, but must write them by hand? As the main burden falls on Members of Parliament, will not the right hon. Gentleman give instructions for that instruction to be withdrawn?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me particulars, when I will be glad to look into that point.

Sir H. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already sent him two lots?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE GUARD DUTIES

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the exemption of street party leaders or


sector captains from business premises duty applies to business premises situated in the City of London as well as to the Palace of Westminster as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum issued by the Stationery Office.

Mr. H. Morrison: Any person who works at the Palace of Westminster is exempt from fire guard duties there outside his working hours if he is appointed a sector captain by a local authority. Similarly, any person who works in the City of London is exempt from liability to be enrolled for fire guard duties by the Common Council if he is appointed a sector captain by a local authority. In neither of these cases is there a corresponding exemption for street fire party leaders or block leaders.

Mr. Green: Is the Minister aware that it seems somewhat contrary to the undertaking which he gave in the House of Commons, in answer to a Question of mine, stating that street fire captains and sector captains would be exempt from fire duties elsewhere than their residential duties?

Mr. Morrison: I will look that up, but my recollection is that it relates to sector captains. However, I will make sure about it.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in some cases fire guards using assembly points have arranged their own accommodation and paid the expenses, including heating, lighting, etc., out of their own pockets; that they feel aggrieved that the refund of these expenses is refused; and if he will arrange for a refund to be made where such expenses have fallen upon fire guard personnel in the carrying out of their fire guard duties.

Mr. H. Morrison: The assembly point is only used during alerts or attacks at night, and its purpose then is to ensure that at such times fire guards may know where to report to the street fire party leader or his representative. It is not necessary that an assembly point should be a place indoors, though this is often found convenient. In these circumstances I fear no expenditure from public funds on accommodation for assembly points would be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS (USE OF SCHOOLROOMS)

Mr. Muff: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will remind all public authorities that under the powers given in the 1933 Local Government Act, all candidates at local and parliamentary elections are entitled to the use of schoolrooms in non-provided and provided schools free of charge.

Mr. H. Morrison: As local elections are at present suspended I presume my hon. Friend has Parliamentary elections in mind. The right to use public elementary schools for meetings was given to parliamentary candidates by Section 25 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. I have no reason to believe that the responsible authorities are unaware of this provision, but if my hon. Friend knows of any instance in which facilities were refused and will let me know, I will make inquiry.

Mr. Muff: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that under the Act of 1918 they are allowed to use these buildings free of charge?

Mr. Morrison: My recollection, as a Parliamentary candidate some years ago, is that it is for one meeting only. That is my recollection, but at any rate it is not under the Act of 1918.

Mr. Muff: Is it not a fact that, under the Local Government Act of 1933, both for municipal and Parliamentary elections, every candidate has the right to use council schools?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Morrison: I think there is a maximum out-of-pocket charge.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND, TRAVEL PERMITS (CANADIAN SERVICE PERSONNEL)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as difficulties have arisen and disappointment has been caused by the refusal of the passport officials to issue permits to Canadians serving in His Majesty's Forces in Great Britain, he will arrange for travel permits to be granted to enable them to spend their leave with friends in Northern Ireland.

Mr. H. Morrison: Members of the Canadian Forces in Great Britain are subject to the same rules regarding taking leave in Northern Ireland as other Service personnel. No applications to the Passport and Permit Office from Canadian Service personnel for permits to visit Northern Ireland can be traced. If any were made, the applicant would be referred to his Commanding Officer, with whom the question of granting the necessary leave pass rests.

Dr. Little: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a young man serving in the Canadian Forces recently made arrangements to spend his leave with his sister in County Down, Northern Ireland, and that this was cancelled at the last moment? He was debarred on the ground that his father and mother had passed away. I think it is intolerable, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to see that this question of permits to Canadian Servicemen is investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN (PRISON SENTENCES)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls and young women under 21 years of age first committed to prison since 1939 have subsequently received one, two, three or more prison sentences.

Mr. H. Morrison: In the criminal statistics for 1938 an analysis was published showing how many of the persons first convicted five years earlier had been subsequently convicted and giving separate figures for those who had been dealt with by sentences of imprisonment, by fines or by probation; but the preparation of such an analysis—which involves an elaborate examination of records—is laborious, and I regret that in view of the need for economising in clerical labour, it has not been practicable to make a similar analysis for the more recent period.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that other Government Departments issue reports in simple form will my right hon. Friend be good enough to bring these criminal statistics up to date in a modified form?

Mr. Morrison: In relation to the Question on the Paper, which I was answe-

ing, the compilation of statistics really would involve a great amount of clerical work which, with the strain of the war effort, I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to contemplate at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLLOWAY PRISON (CONDITIONS)

Miss Rathhone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present daily average number of young prisoners in Holloway Prison; how many of them are aged 16 and 17, respectively; what extra allowance of food is made to these young prisoners beyond the adult prison diet; how many classes are held for them and what subjects are taught; and on how many nights in the week are these young prisoners finally locked in their cells at tea-time.

Mr. H. Morrison: The daily average of women under 21 has been, during the last nine months, about 120, of whom about 50 are serving prison sentences and the remainder are persons who come in and out for short periods on remand or on committal or recall to Borstal Institutions. A separate daily average for girls of 16 or 17 cannot be given, but on 8th February there were in the prison 5 girls aged 16 awaiting removal to Approved Schools or Borstal Institutions, and 14 girls aged 17, of whom 7 were on remand and 3 awaiting removal to Borstal Institutions. I am advised that the prison diet is fully adequate for these young prisoners, but the medical officer can order extra nourishment whenever necessary. The evening arrangements have been a matter of anxiety to the Prison Commissioners and myself. Owing to the shortage of staff and the difficulty of finding suitable recruits, evening activities have had to be drastically curtailed. There is a class in toy-making and special arrangements are made from time to time to get young prisoners out of their cells, but many of them have to be locked in their cells from the time when the last meal is served, because it is impossible to find, amongst a staff which has for a long period been working very hard, persons to supervise them. Arrangements have, however, been made, which I hope will be completed in the next few days, to appoint a housemistress whose special duty will be to look after the welfare of the younger prisoners, and as soon as this appointment


is made it should be practicable to make substantial improvements in the evening routine.

Miss Rathbone: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, and for this new arrangement which should prove valuable, may I ask him to bear in mind that the unsatisfactory hygienic and educational arrangements at Holloway make it very desirable either to improve arrangements or to limit as much as possible the number of young girls sent there?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Lady that I am conscious of certain deficiencies which arise out of war circumstances, and I will do my very best to improve conditions.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that classes for these young women will be resumed under the new arrangements?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite certain but I am very anxious to do so.

Mr. Astor: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider having the prison dietary examined by experts of the Ministry of Food to see whether it contains the necessary vitamins?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into that. I thought we had expert advice.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the basic weakness, shortage of staff, and cannot my right hon. Friend arrange with the Minister of Labour to see whether special efforts could not be made to secure extra staff?

Mr. Morrison: That has been done and my right hon. Friend is doing his best, but he also has his difficulties, as have other Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLUB, LONDON (PROSECUTION)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give any information in connection with the police raid on the Wardour Social Club, Gerrard Street, Soho, charged by the police with being a club used as a gambling house; and if he intends closing the club.

Mr. H. Morrison: This club was entered by the police on 4th February, and the

proprietor and ten other persons found on the premises were arrested. On the following day the proprietor was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour and ordered to pay £6 10s. costs. He has given notice of appeal against the sentence. The ten frequenters were bound over. There is no power to order the closing of a club of this character.

Mr. Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why I take such an interest in these gaming clubs is because that when I was a boy I saw men come out of the factory, play pitch and toss and lose all their money?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is a proper check made on the persons who frequent these clubs in view of the fact that so many are salesmen and people not essential to the war effort?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend is contemplating that it is at all possible for the police to make a full check on everyone who goes into a club I can assure him that in the existing man-power situation it is quite impossible.

Mr. Walkden: Do you check up when a raid is made?

Mr. Morrison: When we make a raid we find out all sorts of interesting things.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

State Pensions

Major Nield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet able to make a statement as to the increases of pensions to be allowed to State pensioners and, in particulars, to men who served in the Boer war and in the war of 1914.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): No, Sir, but I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Major Nield: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to inform the House if it is proposed to increase pensions generally to meet the higher cost of living or merely to assist individual cases?

Sir J. Anderson: I think I had better not anticipate what I shall have to say on a later occasion.

Old Age Pensions (Income Tax)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, when


framing his Budget for the forthcoming financial year, consider exempting from Income Tax such income as is derived from old age pensions under the contributory Acts.

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid I could not see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal. I would point out that the amount, if any, on which tax is actually payable in the case of a pensioner will depend, as in the case of any other taxpayer, on the total income of the recipient and the allowances and reliefs to which he is entitled.

Mr. Kirby: Is the Chancellor aware that public opinion is growing very fast in relation to this matter in favour of such a proposal as is indicated by the Question?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not aware of that.

Surplus Goods (Disposal)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the principles guiding the Treasury as regards the disposal of goods surplus to war requirements; and whether before such goods are disposed of by Government Departments the Treasury is consulted.

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained the methods which would be followed in the disposal of post-war surpluses in answer to a Question on 2nd November, 1943. Goods which become surplus to requirements while the war is still in progress are disposed of as far as possible in accordance with similar principles after consultation with the Treasury and other Departments concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether precautions are taken to ensure that when goods surplus to war requirements are disposed of to manufacturers and wholesalers the subsequent price to retailers is controlled?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is a Question that had better be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. So far as I am concerned every possible care is taken.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that I have evidence of engines taken practically new out of tanks being sold for £50 or £60 each?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Member will send that information to the proper quarter.

Mr. Shinwell: Because of the considerable information that is now coming along regarding goods now being disposed of to wholesalers and manufacturers will the right hon. Gentleman give, as far as is practicable, some little attention to the matter and discover what is going on?

Sir J. Anderson: I will gladly do so and perhaps my hon. Friend will give me any information he has in his possession.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the President of the Board of Trade gave a reply on this point the real issue was whether the Government had an inventory of the goods that they possessed? How is he going to deal with the disposal of stocks when the Government are not sure that the stocks belong to them?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend is mistaken. The reply to which I was referring had nothing to do with inventories. It explained that, so far as possible, the disposal of various categories of goods was entrusted to the Departments that had the handling of the goods in the first instance.

Motor Cars and Motor Cycles (Taxation)

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with his forthcoming Budget, he will consider the injustice suffered by private motor car owners by reason of the additional taxation of 66⅔ per cent. on the existing rate imposed upon them in 1939, shortly before the war broke out, notwithstanding the fact that since January, 1940, the use of motor cars and motor cycles has been restricted by some 75 per cent and confined to solely essential purposes; and will he see that this is removed.

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that there has been no change of circumstances that would justify me in departing from the views expressed by my predecessor on 29th June last, in Debate on last year's Finance Bill.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Debate to which he refers, his predecessor stated that it


was not a mileage tax but a car tax, and that there was no difference between that and the issue of licences for wireless sets? Does he also recognise that anyone can use his wireless set at any time, but that a person is now prohibited from using his car or cycle except for certain very limited purposes and restricted distances?

Estate Duty

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any calculation has been made as to the estimated loss to the Revenue owing to the breaking up of large estates by the existing heavy Death Duties whereby there is a permanent loss of Income Tax and Surtax previously paid up to 19s. 6d. in the £ on the largest estates.

Sir J. Anderson: There are no statistics available of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. I assume that he has in mind agricultural estates. It is estimated that of the total yield of Estate Duty, of about £90,000,000, about £2,000,000 is from agricultural estates.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that it is a mistake not to choose one system or the other and that he is killing the goose which lays the golden eggs by these heavy Death Duties, whereby he is receiving much less Income Tax and Surtax than he was prior to the taxpayer's death?

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider presenting a large estate to every citizen in the country in order to get more Income Tax and Surtax?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND (SMUGGLING)

Dr. Little: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the growth of smuggling between Eire and Northern Ireland, he will adopt such measures as will put an end to this evil.

Sir J. Anderson: I am aware that goods are smuggled across the Northern Ireland land boundary, but vigorous preventive measures are already in operation, as a result of which numbers of offenders have been brought to book.

Dr. Little: Cannot my right hon. Friend do something stronger? Does he not consider it the duty of the State to prevent these robbers escaping?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Foot and Mouth Disease

Mr. Bernard Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, whether he will consider placing a ban on the movement of store and dairy cattle for a period of 14 days when bought in a public market.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have considered the suggestion very carefully, and am satisfied that it would not be practicable to prohibit the movement of store and dairy cattle for 14 days after their movement from public markets.

Mr. Levy: Is it not the fact that a number of these cases are caused by cattle having to drink at stagnant water, because there is no fresh water for them to drink? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do with regard to water supplies for the rural and agricultural areas?

National Minimum Wage

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has seen the demand by the Agricultural Workers' Union for a minimum wage of £4 a week; and whether he will take this into consideration in discussing with representatives of the industry the interpretation of his 1940 pledge to farmers and the guaranteed prices to be fixed for a period of four years.

Mr. Hudson: As regards the first part of the Question, a proposal to raise the national minimum wage to £4 per week was considered by the Agricultural Wages Board last year. The outcome was the decision by the Board to fix the national minimum at 65s. The second part of the Question seems to be of a hypothetical character.

Mr. Granville: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this demand has been made? Will he take this into consideration in his present talks, particularly with regard to the long-term policy? Does not this modify his attitude in regard to the 1940 pledge?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. The hon. Member is misinformed. No proposal to raise the minimum wage has been put before the Agricultural Wages Board.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the discussions he has with the National Farmers' Union, see that the Agricultural Workers' Union is brought in, so that the element of wages may be taken into consideration?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member can be assured that the element of wages is very prominently in the mind of the National Farmers' Union.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is not this constant demand for increased wages a sure road to inflation? Ought it not to be stopped?

Workers' Cottages

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of farm cottages completed but still standing unoccupied without tenants; and whether he will make better known to would-be tenants the procedure they must adopt with the war agricultural county committees to make them eligible as tenants for these cottages.

Mr. Hudson: Of the 169 cottages completed by the 17th of last month, 123 were occupied at the end of the month. Agricultural workers eligible for tenancy of these cottages should look out for advertisements and other public announcements, or approach war agricultural executive committees direct. All possible steps are being taken by these committees, acting in collaboration with rural district councils, to make known the availability of the cottages.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the real problem the fact that would-be tenants are surrounded by forms? Are there not forms to the right of them and forms to the left of them—a deluge of forms? To what forms are these would-be tenants to go?

Mr. Hudson: One of the reasons for the gap between the completion of these houses and their occupation is the necessity of allowing the houses to dry out before they are occupied.

Post-War Policy

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider

convening a meeting of representatives from the National Farmers' Union and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, with a view to further discussion on broad lines of post-war policy for agriculture; and whether he will consider making pronouncements from time to time of progress in these matters.

Mr. Hudson: I understand that representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have already met to consider a basis of collaboration on post-war policy. No doubt the parties concerned will themselves arrange for any further discussions that may be desired.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the views of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are very enlightened, and that he might learn a great deal from them?

Fallen Trees (Removal)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in many fields there are tree trunks lying on the ground and decaying; and what steps he is taking to see that these trees are not allowed to damage cultivation but are collected and used for saving fuel.

Mr. Hudson: County war agricultural executive committees are empowered to give directions in appropriate cases, under Defence Regulation 62, requiring the removal of fallen trees that interfere with the proper cultivation of any land. If specific cases are brought to my notice I shall be glad to pass the particulars on to the county committee for consideration. The disposal of the trees after removal is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. Friend, at the same time, look at the decaying advertisement hoardings in the fields?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME (HOLIDAY PERIODS)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the breaks caused by holidays in the supply of milk in schools, he will consider issuing permits to parents enabling them to obtain this supply from their own milkman during these periods.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): This matter has been given the most sympathetic consideration ever since the inception of the scheme before the war. The problems involved are, my hon. Friend will appreciate, considerably more complicated in war-time than in peace-time, and my right hon. Friend regrets he is unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Smith: In view of the bad effects of the break in regard to nutrition, is it not worth while to make every effort to overcome the administrative difficulties?

Mr. Mabane: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it was not possible to overcome the difficulties in the much easier conditions of peace-time.

Viscountess Astor: They did not try to overcome them in peace-time.

Mr. Mabane: We have tried to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTERITY CLOTHES (STOCKS)

Lieut. - Colonel Windsor - Clive: asked the president of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the hardships caused to retailers, especially small retailers, by the sudden change in the regulations regarding austerity clothing; and whether he will arrange for them to receive some compensation for the losses which they are incurring owing to his reversal of the official policy he reaffirmed on 27th October, 1943, at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Outfitters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): It is as yet too early to judge what hardship, if any, may be suffered by those engaged in the distribution of austerity clothes. The Director-General of Civilian Clothing is to-day discussing the effects of the change with representatives of the retail trade.

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that when people are led to believe that a policy will continue and then the policy is suddenly reversed, they ought not to have to bear the whole of the loss which they suffer in consequence?

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that I said that as yet there is no evidence that any loss

will be suffered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I repeat that, as yet, there is no evidence that any loss will be suffered. After such a loss is suffered we shall be perfectly prepared to look into it, but, until any loss is suffered, it would be absurd to ask the Government to do anything.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Trade himself assured the trade that there would be no such change of policy?

Captain Waterhouse: He made no such statement. My right hon. Friend's statement was that there would be no change without notice. In fact, five weeks' notice was given of this change.

Mr. Stokes: He said, "sudden notice."

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the apprehension felt by stockists of ready-made clothing lest they should be left with large stocks of clothing in their shops and thus suffer heavy loss?

Captain Waterhouse: I am well aware that there is widespread apprehension and it is for that reason that the Director of Clothing is to-day meeting the trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOGS (ORDERS FOR DESTRUCTION)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the £1 per day fines imposed on dog owners who do not obey orders to have their dogs destroyed; and whether he will consider some alternative such as confinement to recognised quarantine kennels.

Mr. Hudson: I have been asked to reply. My concern with the class of dogs to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is limited to animals which are a menace to farm stock. It will, therefore, be necessary to consult other Departments and I will arrange for this to be done.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that what I am concerned about is the fact that the law is being brought into contempt? Is it not time that it was either enforced or modified?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, NORTHERN RAILWAY YARD

Mr Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport


if he can give any information in connection with the explosion at a Northern railway yard; how many people were killed and injured; and what was the cause of the explosion.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply. I can, at present, add very little to the accounts of this accident which have appeared in the Press, but I should like to take this opportunity to express my deep sympathy with the relatives of the 12 people who were killed and with the 66 who were injured. All the circumstances connected with this explosion are now being closely investigated, and a court of inquiry is being held this week to consider these circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST TERRITORIES (ADMINISTRATION)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War when a Report will be made to Parliament on the present administration of territories in Africa and the Middle East which are no longer theatres of war but for which the British Government has continuing responsibilities.

Mr. A. Henderson: As my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) on 27th July, the Ministry of Information are publishing a book about the administration of Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. It is expected that it will be published in the early summer.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that the House is almost entirely without knowledge as to the character of the administration in these countries, for example, Iraq, as well as Italian Somaliland, and will he do his best to hasten forward this publication in order that we shall have that information?

Mr. Henderson: It is the object of this book to supply the information, but, unfortunately, there has been some delay. My right hon. Friend indicated that the book was expected a few months ago—in October—but there have been delays which have prevented the book being published before to-day.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is a propaganda book published by the Ministry of Information an adequate instrument for informing this House about these territories? Is it not an absurd situation, and ought we not to have a report from the Government?

Mr. Henderson: I think we had better wait until we see whether the book is a propaganda instrument.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the Minister aware that the Middle East is not confined to Italian Somaliland, but, in fact, extends from Tripoli to Aleppo?

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPIED EUROPE (CATTLE STOCKS)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the plans of the United Nations for restocking Europe with livestock, especially cattle and, in particular, what plans have been made for the conversion of shipipng for the carriage of stock; and what action is being taken now for the collection of suitable stock in this country and elsewhere?

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): This is a question which falls to be dealt with by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to Command Paper 6497, he will, I think, find that Resolutions Nos. 11 and 27 of the Council of U.N.R.R.A. and the Report of Sub-Committee 5 of Committee 4 are relevant to the matter he has in mind.

Captain Duncan: As we in this country must play our part, can the right hon. Gentleman say what action the British Government have taken to collect animals in this country now; and is he aware that young female cattle of good breed, are at present being slaughtered for food?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, I was not aware of that point, but I think the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question raises matters which can be dealt with only by the Minister of Agriculture.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put this Question down to the Prime Minister, and that it was transferred to him? Therefore, he must bear responsibility for the


answer. Will he look into this question of the slaughtering of young female cattle for food at the present time, and stop the practice?

Mr. Law: I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next Sitting Days?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business will be as follows:
First and second Sitting Days.—Further progress will be made with the Committee stage of the Education Bill, and, in order that we may get on a little more rapidly, I hope I may ask the House to give us some extra time on those two days.
Third Sitting Day.—Committee stage of the Income Tax (Offices and Employments) Bill, and, afterwards, Committee stage of the Re-instatement in Civil Employment Bill.
Fourth Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the House of Commons Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Bill, and the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Re-instatement in Civil Employment Bill. During the week, if there is time, we shall take the Second Reading of the Naval Forces (Extension of Service) Bill [Lords] and make further progress with the Prize Salvage Bill [Lords], the Guardianship (Refugee Children) Bill [Lords] and the Public Works Loans Bill.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I now give advance information of our intentions in respect to a Debate on the war and the international situation. The Prime Minister will make a statement on the war and the international situation on the first Sitting Day in the series of Sittings after next. In order to allow ample opportunity for debate, I propose to suggest that we should give two days to it. I cannot give an absolute pledge of the date, but, unless anything unforeseen happens, our intention is, as I have stated, and I thought hon. Members would like to know that.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has now given consideration to a proposal emanating from several hon. and right hon. Members that we should have a Debate on Dominion economic policy; and will he, at the same time, say whether, in view of the limited nature of the Debate to take place on the next Sitting Day, on the Supplementary Civil Estimate relating to Lord Woolton's salary and activities, we cannot have a wider Debate and whether we shall have an opportunity at a later date of discussing the whole question of reconstruction?

Earl Winterton: Further on that point, may I ask is the Minister aware that the demand for this Debate on Empire economic policy comes from all parts of the House, and that hon. Gentlemen are anxious that, in view of the points expressed by two Dominion Prime Ministers and a British Ambassador, the House should have an opportunity of expressing approval or otherwise of those statements?

Sir Edward Grigg: I support the request made for a Debate, and I hope I may point out that, since it was last debated in this House, the question has been debated and discussed in all the Dominions and in another place.

Mr. Eden: I must say that I agree with the points expressed by many Members that this topic should be discussed in the House. What I cannot say at the moment is exactly what date will be practicable. I should have thought that the subject would be Dominion affairs, in the widest sense of the term. Perhaps I may be able, in the next series of Sittings, to announce a date, but I cannot do so now. The Government do understand that the House desires an opportunity of debating it. The other matter raised is one for the House, and I would rather see how we get on during the next Sitting Day before I give any undertaking.

Mr. Maxton: How many of the 20 different Supplementary Estimates put down for the next Sitting Day is the right hon. Gentleman expecting to take?

Mr. Eden: I shall hope to make all the progress in our power.

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that a very important statement on housing was made yesterday in another place, and the fact that the House of Commons is


peculiarly interested in this matter, cannot we have an opportunity of discussing it, because the Debate fixed for the next Sitting Day is almost certainly too restricted and too narrow to enable that to be done?

Mr. Speaker: I would point out that we are really discussing the Business for the next series of Sittings and that when these points are suddenly brought up the Government must have time to consider them, otherwise they will not be in a position to give any answer.

Mr. Bevan: One of the difficulties in which we are placed is that the usual channels are Government channels and, therefore, we have no opportunity whatever, except on this occasion, of influencing the Business of the House. I respectfully submit that that is our difficulty. Unless we had exercised this opportunity over the last three years the House of Commons would have very often been deprived of valuable Debates. I suggest, therefore, that in these circumstances it is wholly intolerable that another place should be the first to discuss the provision of what are largely working class houses. We ought to have the Debate here and not there.

Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the very courteous reply which he gave last week when he said that he was considering the question of a possible Debate on delegated legislation, he now has anything to add to what he then said?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I have that in mind, but I must warn the House that we have a great deal of legislation to get through and until we reach Supply Days the number of days available to us is not very large. I want the House to discuss the subjects in which it is interested.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a timetable for the Education Bill? Is my right hon. Friend aware that any attempt to curtail discussion on this important Measure would be much resented, and that we had much rather sit very late?

Mr. Eden: I think that my hon. Friend would realise from my answer that that is not my intention. I said that we would allow a little extra time, because

we want to make progress. I am reluctant to take that view. In reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) we cannot say that no statements of importance are to be made in another place, but certainly opportunities will arise and I cannot at this moment make any special arrangement.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) without limit, on the first Sitting Day of the series of Sittings after next, and in the meantime, would he advise the Prime Minister to stop sending foolish letters to candidates at by-elections?

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make any statement as to the prospect of a Debate on the award of the 1939–43 Star?

Mr. Eden: In answer to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), as regards the suspension of the Rule on the first Day, the suggestion will be considered. With regard to his second reference, I would remind him that this is still a free country and that even Prime Ministers can send letters if they want to do so.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I put my regular question? When will the Bill with respect to State pensions for Government servants be brought before the House?

Mr. Eden: I would remind the hon. Member that, in his absence last week, I told an hon. Member that it would be available in a fortnight. I cannot say when Parliamentary time will be found for it.

Mr. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has backslidden, because he says to-day that it will be introduced shortly?

Mr. Eden: It seems to me that "very shortly" and "a fortnight" are very much the same.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. A moment or two ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who asked a question on the subject of a housing Debate, you intimated that hon. Members could give notice to the Government. That is the first time we


have had such an intimation or suggestion made to us. I wonder whether you would be good enough to convey to us the appropriate means of conveying to the Government what hon. Members desire outside the usual official channels?

Mr. Speaker: The matter is fairly simple. Obviously, it is commonsense for an hon. Member to let the Government know what question he wishes to ask so that they can give an answer. An hon. Member should inform the Chief Whip in the Lobby and say, "I am going to raise such and such a question."

Mr. Shinwell: That is a method which is often used by hon. Members but frequently the Chief Whip reminds hon. Members that there are the usual official channels, which are sometimes blocked against certain hon. Members.

Mr. Bevan: Have you taken cognisance of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the right to ask questions of the Government without notice has for centuries been one of the time honoured ways adopted by hon. Members in opposition to the Government? If the procedure is adopted that every time we propose to ask a question about Business it is regarded as proper to tell the Government beforehand it will deprive the Opposition in the House of Commons of one of its most habitual methods.

Mr. Speaker: I do not agree with the hon. Member. I thought that Question Time was merely for the convenience of Members of the House so that they might learn the Business. It has nothing to do with the Opposition or the supporters of the Government but is purely for convenience and it is in that spirit that I made my suggestion.

Mr. Molson: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister promised a Debate on the 1939–43 Star as long ago as last November, may I ask the Leader of the House when that Debate is likely to take place?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand that in view of the present pressure on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the fact that he will be speaking in Debate, it would be unfair to debate both subjects during the same series of Sittings, but he has the matter in mind.

ELECTORAL REFORM (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

Mr. H. Morrison: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to be able to inform the House that you have now accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister to preside over the Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats. I know that I shall be expressing the unanimous view of the House as well as that of the Government when I thank you for undertaking this addition to your already heavy responsibilities.
As regards the terms of reference of the Conference, the Government have considered the suggestions which were made in the very useful Debate which took place last week, and, in view of the widely expressed desire that the Conference should be enabled to consider the question of the expenses of Parliamentary candidates and Members of Parliament in its wider aspects, they have decided to extend the terms of reference to cover this question. The terms of reference will accordingly be as follows:
To examine and, if possible, submit agreed resolutions on the following matters:

(a) Redistribution of seats.
(b) Reform of franchise (both Parliamentary and local government).
(c) Conduct and costs of Parliamentary elections, and expenses falling on candidates and Members of Parliament.
(d) Methods of election."

The House will, I know, join with me in wishing the Conference well in the important task before it.

Mr. Shinwell: Arising from the decision of the House to set up a Speaker's Conference, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in the selection of the personnel of that Conference, which we assume is entirely within your own discretion, representations will be made by the political parties in the House on the subject of personnel, and whether your selection will be exclusively confined to the representations made by those parties, or whether you will go outside those representations to select Members?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter which has been left entirely in my own hands. Therefore, hon. Members can judge for themselves when I read out the list of Members who have accepted my invitation to serve on the Conference.

Mr. Maxton: The Home Secretary made some references to "agreed resolutions."

Hon. Members: "If possible".

Mr. Woodburn: Has the Home Secretary given any consideration to the question of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act and to bringing that up to date as well as other election machinery; and in regard to local government, has he given any consideration to the bringing of the machinery of local elections up to date?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to corrupt and illegal practices, I should think that they might be covered by "the conduct and costs of Parliamentary elections." With regard to local government elections, I gave very careful consideration to the suggestion my hon. Friend has made, but I found that it would involve the Conference going over the whole field of local government elections. I thought that that would unduly burden the Conference, and that, perhaps, it ought to be considered in another way. Therefore, while I was sympathetic, I found that I could not pursue that in connection with the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I notice in the terms of reference the words "expenses of Parliamentary candidates and Members of Parliament." Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better to divide the two, so that the Conference will be able to deal with the expenses of Parliamentary candidates separately from the expenses of Members of Parliament? I speak feelingly on the last subject, by the way.

Mr. Morrison: As far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent Mr. Speaker's Conference, if they are so minded, from considering them separately.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: With regard to the redistribution of seats, will that include an examination into those constituencies which have dual membership, such as Southampton?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is certainly within the terms of reference.

Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend, though I doubt whether it should be addressed to him or to you, Mr. Speaker, a question on a point of procedure? In the case of a Select Committee affecting in any way the interests of Members of this House, I understand that

Members have the right to ask to be heard before the Committee or to make a submission to it. Many of us are likely to be very greatly affected by decisions reached on the subject of the size of constituencies. I should like to know what machinery will exist to enable us to submit our views to your Conference, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I should say that is a matter for the Conference itself to decide after it has met. It is quite impossible for me to give an answer in advance upon that point. In any case I suggest that after the Conference has reported hon. Members will be able to express their views in a Debate.

Earl Winterton: I understand that nothing you have said, Mr. Speaker, would preclude any hon. or right hon. Member who wishes to make submissions to the Conference from doing so, though whether or not the Conference took any notice of them would be another matter. I suggest, with respect, that it should be open to us to make submissions to somebody before the Conference reports.

Mr. Speaker: There will be secretaries to the Conference and any hon. Member can write to them.

Mr. Quibell: Will it be competent for the Conference to consider the difficulties experienced in large rural divisions where, in many cases, as many as 20 villages have not a polling station, so that while the right to vote is given to the inhabitants the right to exercise their vote is denied to them? I hope that this Conference will be able to consider the provision of more voting facilities.

Mr. Morrison: As far as I can see, that question would be within its terms of reference if the Conference wished to consider it. On the other hand, I do not think it would require a change of law, because I think powers already exist with the Home Secretary and the local authorities to deal with that point.

Mr. A. Bevan: As you, Mr. Speaker, have the sole and exclusive right of selecting the members of this Conference, will you have regard to the fact that there are areas which have peculiar territorial claims to special consideration, such as Wales and Scotland; and will not the recommendations of the Conference be prejudiced unless those areas are adequately


represented in the Conference? Furthermore, will it be entirely a coincidence if your selection of members of the Conference coincides with the lists put forward by the principal parties?

Viscountess Astor: Could we not wait for the Conference to meet, and stop all these nuisance questions? It is a waste of time.

Mr. McNeil: Do I understand from the reply which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that the question of the reform of the local government franchise is being excluded from the scope of the Conference?

Mr. Morrison: The local government franchise as it is now has a relationship to the Parliamentary franchise in the light of the Parliamentary (Elections and Meeting) Act and it will be covered by "Reform of franchise (both Parliamentary and local government)". My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) referred to other aspects of local government elections.

Sir William Davison: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker. that the House would much prefer that you should select the members of the Conference rather than be dictated to by certain Members of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may inform the hon. Member that I have already sent out my invitations.

Mr. Mathers: Does the reference to the cost of elections include a consideration of the deposit which has to be made to the returning officer?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. That would come within the reference to the conduct and costs of Parliamentary elections, I should think.

Dr. Russell Thomas: May we have some assurance that when the Conference first meets and arranges its procedure it will consider the request made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), because I think it deals with a matter of considerable importance?

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better let the Conference get on with its business.

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS (PROCEDURE)

Sir H. Williams: I wish to ask for your guidance, Sir, on a matter concerning both procedure and Business. You have been good enough to institute procedure under which there is given, at the back of your Chair, an indication of what subjects will be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment and by whom they will be raised. I take it that when hon. Members come to you—there may be more than one coming—your decision as to who is to have the opportunity of raising a question on the Adjournment is largely influenced by the subject-matter, and therefore it is not to be regarded as an allocation of an opportunity to a Member primarily but to a Member in association with his subject. I notice that in one case the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) is the lucky person but that the subject has been changed. It seems an extraordinary thing if, when an occasion is allocated to a Member for the purpose of raising a particular issue, he is entitled to change the subject and raise another issue.

Mr. Driberg: May I put it to you with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that once an Adjournment date has been allocated, with your approval, to a particular Member, the subject-matter is primarily a question between that Member and whichever Minister he can induce to come to the House to answer him, and the publication of it is only incidental and for the convenience of hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is perfectly clear that the Adjournment is given to an hon. Member as an individual. It is for the convenience of the House that a list is put up showing what will be the subjects. It might not be convenient for a Minister to attend on a particular day, and the hon. Member who has that day would be entitled to change the subject; but I do hope that hon. Members, having once stated the subjects which they wish to raise, and the list having been put on the back of the Chair, will do their best—and Ministers too—to abide by the decision to raise that subject and not change it.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are we to understand that it is not a matter for a


Ruling but a matter of ordinary decent conduct?

Sir A. Southby: Following what you, Mr. Speaker, have just said, may I ask you to consider this point? It is customary for hon. Members who are dissatisfied with the answers which they have received to their Questions at Question Time to give notice that they will raise the subject on the Motion for the Adjournment. I submit that if they have given notice to that effect, then that should tie them to raising that matter and only that matter, and they are not entitled afterwards to change their minds and substitute another subject.

Mr. Speaker: I think that what the hon. and gallant Member has said might be taken to mean that I was asked to make a fundamental change in the Rules of the House. Any hon. Member can raise anything he likes on the Motion for the Adjournment, and I have no right to interfere with him so long as he conforms to the Rules of Order.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Some subjects which have been raised on Motions for the Adjournment have been backed by a number of names. If the hon. Member who heads the list of names asking for that subject to be raised is to change the subject, what is the position of those hon. Members who have supported the original subject which he was going to raise? I think it would be a difficult position if their names were still to remain on the list.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that any hon. Member, if he catches your eye, can still raise the original subject on that date?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if he catches my eye.

STANDING ORDERS

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:

"That, in the case of the London Midland and Scottish Railway [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main purpose of this Bill is to carry out an undertaking which I gave to the House on 2nd November in the course of the Debate on the first Pay-as-you-earn Bill which became the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943. I then said that I would include either in the next Finance Bill or in a special Bill a provision for extending Pay-as-you-earn, as the House obviously desired, over the whole range of Schedule E taxpayers, with the exception of the Armed Forces. The Bill which I have now presented to the House carries out that undertaking by extending the application of last year's Bill to "all emoluments assessable for Income Tax under Schedule E, other than emoluments payable in respect of service in the Armed Forces of the Crown." This means that apart from the single exception of the Armed Forces, as to which I shall say something more in a moment, everyone liable to Income Tax under Schedule E, that is to say everyone deriving an income from an office or employment, whatever the amount of the income, whatever the nature of the employment, will be chargeable under the new system.
When we were debating this matter last year, I told the House that we could not extend Pay-as-you-earn to the Armed Forces because of the practical difficulties in war-time, with very large Forces scattered over many different theatres of war, of making a change in the existing system. The Forces, however, are not left entirely out of account in the Bill, for, as hon. Members will have seen, I propose to give them the benefits of Pay-as-you-earn in a rather different way. The Forces already pay as they go, to the extent that the tax chargeable on them is paid over the Income-Tax year and not many months in arrear, as has hitherto been the case in most employments in civil life. If, therefore, the man in the Forces were brought on to the


Pay-as-you-earn system the chief advantage that he would derive would be that his tax liability would be adjusted to any fall in pay which had the effect of bringing his pay for the current year below that for the preceding year. This happens in some cases where an acting rank is held for a time and then relinquished, and in order to meet this situation, and in view of the impossibility of putting the Forces fully on a Pay-as-you-earn basis, we have included a Clause in this Bill to give relief by reducing the Schedule E assessment on the Service pay to the amount of the actual pay of the Income-Tax year if that is lower than the pay of the preceding year.
I turn now to what in November last I called the "appropriate safeguards" which I said would be necessary, if the new system were extended above the £600 limit so as to include all levels of income. Before explaining to the House the conclusions which I have reached on this subject, perhaps it will be convenient if I once more indicate quite briefly the reasons why safeguards are needed. Hon. Members may remember that in the normal course the Schedule E assessment for the current year, 1943–44, is based on the income for the preceding year, 1942–43. Under Pay-as-you-earn, tax for 1944–45, beginning on 6th April next, will be charged on current income. This means that in the ordinary way income earned in the year 1943–44 will not, in the case of persons transferred to Pay-as-you-earn, ever form the basis of any Income Tax assessment. The loophole which this fact opens to a possibility of evasion is fairly obvious. In cases where the taxpayer is able to increase his income under Schedule E at the expense either of income under another Schedule or of income for another year, he stands to benefit by bringing that income into a non-taxable category. I instanced last time the clearest case of this kind, the one-man company, with a proprietor drawing, perhaps, £2,000 a year in salary and another £2,000 in dividends. As matters have stood in the past it has made no difference how he has allotted the total income of the business between profits to himself as a shareholder and remuneration to himself as an employee, but under the Pay-as-you-earn proposals if he were to take the whole income of the business as salary to him-

self in the current year, the increase would, in the absence of a special safeguard, escape taxation altogether.
That is the extreme case; but there are clearly many other instances where some manipulation might be possible, and I told the House last November that I thought it would be impossible to find an adequate remedy by looking at the motive behind any increase, and that the only safeguard that would, as I then thought, be fully effective would be to levy a supplementary assessment on any amount by which the remuneration of the current financial year exceeded that of the preceding year. That was the proposal which I then had in mind, and I indicated that I thought it would only be necessary for those classes newly brought in by the extension above £600 a year since the opportunity for serious evasion among the lower salary earners would be negligible. I gave the House that warning because I was exceedingly anxious not to raise false hopes. I have since given a great deal of thought to the matter, and the House will, I think, have been glad to see that I have been able to come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to introduce so sweeping a Measure as I then had in mind. As I said at the time, the supplementary assessments then in view would have covered not only special additions arranged for the purpose of avoiding tax but additions which, in fact, would have been made in the ordinary course of events. On examination, I have found it possible to confine the remedy of additional assessments to exceptional increases of remuneration made after 20th September last, which was the date when the first announcement of the Pay-as-you-earn system was made.
Clause 8 of the Bill provides, accordingly, that only increases made after 20th September, 1943, would be taken into account, and that ordinary increases of pay due to promotion, to the application of ordinary incremental scales, extra overtime and any other similar increase of an ordinary character are excluded from the operation of the Clause. Thus, there will be no question of imposing an additional charge on all the large number of persons who will have received normal increases in pay. The expression "other similar increase of an ordinary character" will cover Christmas bonuses and other bonuses given in the ordinary course.


The Clause is intended thus to enable the Inland Revenue to ignore all the normal incidents of employment which may have resulted in additional remuneration for the current year, while giving the authorities power to take action where special transactions of an extraordinary character have taken place which might otherwise result in avoidance of tax.
As is explained in the Memorandum printed with the Bill, the provision to increase 1943–44 assessments has no application to manual wage earners because, in their case, the basis of assessment is the actual income for the year, and the question of avoidance of tax on transition to Pay-as-you-earn does not arise. But it does apply to all other office holders and employees, whether their salaries are above or below the old £600 dividing line. I shall not expect to find in practice that there is much opportunity for evasion among those earning the lower salaries, but as this provision, as now drawn, excludes all ordinary increases of remuneration and is only directed to special increases made since September last, there is no reason, I think, why it should not cover all earnings other than those of the manual wage earner.
As will be seen, Clause 8 of the Bill, which is concerned with this matter, imposes a charge on the taxpayer in certain circumstances, and will, therefore, require a Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means, and a Resolution for this purpose has been placed on the Order Paper and will be moved later in to-day's proceedings.
Before leaving this question, I would like to make two further remarks. The first is that the provision I have included in the Bill will be administered in a liberal spirit and there will be no attempt on the part of the Inland Revenue authorities to bring under it changes of remuneration which are part of ordinary employment. But it will give them power—and this is necessary—to check any attempt at collusive evasion and, in this connection, it is to be remembered that even a person who is hit by the Clause will have no legitimate ground of complaint, as he will merely be charged on what he has in fact received. The other remark I wish to make on this point is to say that it is possible to imagine some rather fantastic schemes that might be aimed at avoiding tax on

the transition to Pay-as-you-earn which would not be covered by the provision in the Bill. I do not propose to advertise such devices by explaining them now. But I think the House would wish me to say that the Inland Revenue authorities will be watching carefully to see whether such devices are in fact employed. If they are, I shall not hesitate to ask the House to deal with them by legislation of a retrospective character. Perhaps I may reasonably hope, having said this, that the need for such legislation will not, in fact, arise.
Apart from a few details, the rest of the Bill is concerned with the extension of the various provisions for discharging outstanding tax on the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn. Their purpose is explained in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill, but the House will no doubt wish that I should say something more about their principal features. One of these provisions, which is contained in Clause 4, deals with certain special classes such, for example, as certain railway employees for whom there is deduction of tax which although it does not run, as in the case of ordinary Schedule E employees, from 1st November in the year of assessment to the following 31st October, nevertheless extends into the year following the year of assessment, so that there is an arrear of tax remaining uncollected after the end of the Income-Tax year. In the ordinary Schedule E case seven months' tax will remain uncollected at 5th April, 1944, and will be discharged, on the principle that the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn should not be allowed to result in double deductions for an overlapping period. Clause 4 of the Bill extends that principle to those special cases where there is a similar overhang after the end of the tax year, to the extent to which an overlap does in fact exist.
Now I come to Clause 6 of the Bill, dealing with the position of Crown servants, the only part of the Bill, I think, which might in some degree be regarded as controversial. I think it will be convenient if I deal separately in the remarks I am about to make with the cases of temporary Crown servants and permanent Crown servants, because different considerations apply to these two classes. The body of persons which has to be considered under the category of temporary Crown servants includes all people who


have gone from employment into the Armed Forces of the Crown, and all who have gone from private employment, from outside employment, into the Civil Service—a body of men and women obviously deserving of the utmost consideration. So far as the civil servants are concerned, while some of them may have bettered themselves by the change they have made, others, unquestionably, have left their normal occupations and gone into the public service from the most praiseworthy public motives and, in some cases, at some personal financial sacrifice. The position as regards those people is this. When they entered the service of the Crown, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, they had, as had been explained, an outstanding tax liability. I am assuming that they had paid the tax due from them right up to the date of transfer, but there was nevertheless the normal overhang of seven months tax, and in the public service those people were liable for the first seven months to pay not only the instalments of tax in respect of their previous employment, but tax in respect of their official emoluments.
In the case of the Armed Forces I think it is true to say that in a very high proportion of cases, where people have no ample resources, the Revenue Department was content to allow the liability for previous employment to stand over, not in all, because it was open to everyone to pay. In the case of the Civil Service I think the practice was, if payment in full was not tendered, to arrange for payment of the over-hanging obligation by instalments so adjusted as not to increase the deductions on account of current earnings by more than one-third. I think that was the normal practice. The effect which the introduction of Pay-as-you-earn was going to have on these people—as much on men and women in the Armed Forces as on civil servants—was referred to in our previous discussion, and I certainly undertook to give the fullest consideration to the matter. Quite frankly, I have to confess that the grievance of these people in connection with this change in our taxation method is, to some extent, a legitimate grievance, and I want to say to the House that I should have been very glad if I had found it possible to go further towards meeting that grievance than I have gone in this Bill.
Before I explain the difficulties in which I found myself I think it is very important that we should all be quite clear in our minds as to what the grievance is. It is not a question of anyone being called upon to pay more tax than is reasonably due from him; no person, as matters are left by this Bill, will have to pay one penny more than the amount of tax appropriate to the income which he has actually received. The grievance arises quite otherwise. It arises from a combination of circumstances. First, the fact that the person concerned passed from private employment into Crown employment and out again, and then the further fact that the introduction of the system of Pay-as-you-earn comes while he occupies the intermediate status of a Crown servant. That is how the grievance arises, because in the result, the person in question has found himself faced by a charge for which he has had no adequate opportunity of making provision. That is the sum and substance of the matter. I will be perfectly frank with the House on this. As I have said, I wish that the case could have been met by a more radical provision in this Bill. I have sought long and earnestly for some other solution, but I have had to give up the attempt and I will tell the House the reason.
When I came to look into the matter, I found that the relevant considerations that would have to be taken into account in making any further adjustment over and above what is provided in the Bill in the particular case would have to include the individual's position as regards tax liability when he entered Crown employment, his tax liability incurred during Crown employment, his position after he had left Crown employment in respect of liability to tax, whether he was going back to paid employment or going into some occupation under another Schedule. It would be right, probably, also to consider whether the individual's financial position had been improved or worsened by his going into the service of the State temporarily, and when I add that the numbers of individuals concerned runs into many hundreds of thousands, that they are scattered all over the globe, that there are no records from which all the relevant facts could conveniently be gathered, I think the House will sympathise with me when I say that the simple remedy which is provided in the Bill is


the best, and is all, that I have been able to offer. Under the Bill we look forward, we do not look back; no attempt is made to reopen the past, and that is indeed sound revenue practice. If, however, at the beginning of the next Income Tax year there is still outstanding Income Tax liability in respect of his former employment, which the individual has not found it possible to pay, or has not been called upon by the revenue authorities to pay, that outstanding liability is, by the Bill, wiped out. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say about the case of the temporary Crown servants.
I come to what I think is a very much simpler case, the case of the permanent Crown servant—in practice the permanent civil servant. I said, when this matter was debated at some length on a previous occasion, that I felt I could claim to have as sympathetic a view on matters affecting the interests of the Civil Service as any hon. Member. I adhere to that. Nevertheless, I do say that I cannot myself find here any substantial or legitimate grievance. I have received representations, and what I understand some civil servants would like to have is something analogous to the discharge of tax which the Bill provides in the case of the ordinary Schedule E taxpayer. But I have always made it clear from the very beginning that this particular feature of our plans, this discharge of tax, is not put forward as something desirable in itself, or even justifiable in itself; we have provided for the discharge of tax because of the impracticability of adopting a system universally which involved, over a considerable period of months, a double liability to the payment of tax at the existing very high rates; and the discharge, which as hon. Members pointed out when this matter was debated relates in general to a remote period, cannot therefore be looked upon as involving any considerable sacrifice to the State. That was the inevitable price which had to be paid for the introduction of this reform. I want to say to the House in a very few words how the matter strikes me. I need not say much, because I dealt with the position in considerable detail on 2nd November, and, when I was reading by way of preparation for this Debate, what I had said on that occasion, I am bound to tell the House that I found it completely convincing. I do not doubt that

my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will make an effort to present the matter in a somewhat different light.

Mr. W. J. Brown: It will not require an effort, either.

Sir J. Anderson: But I want to say this. Here we are making universal a new plan for the payment of Income Tax which has been widely acclaimed. Is it not rather strange that at this very moment when we are doing, that, we should be asked to make some payment or concession to permanent civil servants by way of compensation—for that is all it amounts to—for their having been all their lives under a plan which, if it is not identical with Pay-as-you-earn, differs from it only in this one respect, that it takes as the basis the previous year's earnings and not current earnings and therefore presses with rather lighter weight on a high proportion of the people concerned than our Pay-as-you-earn plan which has commended itself in all quarters of this House? It seems to me that the implication of the claim which has been made—and I do not want to speak unsympathetically but I do want to speak plainly—is really this, that to be enabled to avoid running up a debt is a disadvantage and not an advantage, that this plan, universally welcomed and most persistently demanded by the civil servants themselves, is not an easement but an infliction, not a boon but a curse. I am sure these are not the real sentiments of the great majority of the civil servants. It is, of course, very natural, it is only human, to feel somewhat envious when others are getting a concession for which one is not eligible oneself; but the civil servants are not alone in this matter. If it is any comfort to them, I can point out that they are being left in this respect in exactly the same position as all taxpayers under Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C, and Schedule D, including the whole body of professional men in exactly the same position. There is no discharge, no remission of tax liability, for any of those people.
I may perhaps remind the House that such financial difficulties as I am now dealing with have arisen in the past on transfer from one kind of employment to another and this overlapping of tax liability has occurred in the past in every case where a tax-paying manual wage earner has ceased to be a manual wage earner and


has become a non-manual wage earner or a salaried person. There has been an overlapping of tax liability and no one has done anything about it. It is not a new problem at all. But these problems happily will all disappear with the passage of this Bill and all incomes from civilian employment will then be brought under the new Pay-as-you-earn system. I think I have now said enough by way of explanation. My undertaking last year was to bring forward the proposal embodied in this Bill for extension to employment over the £600 limit either in a special Bill or in the Finance Bill. On consideration, it seemed to me better to ask the House to pass a special Measure for this purpose and to do it in good time before the new system comes into operation. Pay-as-you-earn will be the universal arrangement for civilian employment after 6th April next, and the Inland Revenue are making all the heavy preparations necessary for the change on that assumption. I hope the House will agree, subject to what I have said about Crown servants, that this Bill is a satisfactory outcome of the consideration we have been giving together to these matters during the past few months.

Mr. Graham White: I think the House will agree at once that, with the exception of the omission of Crown servants, this Bill is a very satisfactory outcome of those discussions which took place in the House in the autumn of last year, discussions which were more in the nature of prolonged consultations than the disputes which we sometimes have in this House. I am bound to say that having regard to the doubt and apprehension as to the difficulty of dealing with this matter which my right hon. Friend mentioned, I am relieved to find that this Bill is in fact such a simple Measure. I gather it is a simple Measure, although not from my own unaided efforts in reading the Bill, because in some aspects it is a triumph of obscurity. I think Members of Parliament have never had greater cause to be thankful for an Explanatory Memorandum than for the one which goes with this Bill. The Bill is a perfect example of legislation by reference. Members are referred to the principal Act and then to the Finance Act, 1921, but, more than that, are referred to such sources of enlightenment as Rule 21 of the General Rules, page 6, of Schedule D and a large

number of other propositions of a like nature which assume that unless a Member has a very special knowledge of these matters—which can be derived only by special study—he must either have a great deal more time and a great deal more capacity for research than is possible during the time allowed at present for Parliamentary activities.
So long as this Bill remains on the Statute Book it will be there as permanent evidence of the need for simplification of our Income Tax law. I hope it will be an inspiration, if not to my right hon. Friend, then to some Chancellor, some day, to earn the everlasting gratitude of the citizens of this country by setting forth Income Tax in language and terms which can be understood by the ordinary man. I do not wish to lay myself open to the charge of being frivolous by referring to the continued use of the word "emolument" in this Bill. But I must draw attention to the fact that in this Income Tax Bill the word "income." occurs only twice in the Title and on only two or three other occasions, when it is associated with the word "tax." The word "emolument" is an ugly word and one which few people can understand. Yet it is used throughout the Bill with constant reiteration. The House heard with satisfaction what the Chancellor said about the arrangements for dealing with possible evasion. It is obvious that there could be evasion and that there are ingenious people, not sufficiently imbued with public spirit, who would avail themselves of the opportunity. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend carried the House with him on what he said on that point. Nevertheless, it is obvious from the wording of the Measure that administrative difficulties and obscurities may arise on many occasions as to what "any other similar increase of an ordinary character" may mean. The House may well consider in these cases whether there might not be a right of appeal to the Commissioners, so that a person who may feel aggrieved might have his case considered in a complete manner.
The Chancellor mentioned the case of the Christmas bonus, which might have been discontinued in the first three years of the war and resumed last year. Difficulties may arise which may give rise to a sense of obscurity, and as we are all concerned to remove a sense of


injustice wherever we can find it I think the question of a right of appeal is worth considering. I think Clause 5, which concerns those serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown, will give satisfaction to all those with grievances. As regards Clause 6, I think my right hon. Friend did not overstate the case when he said there was a burning grievance in the case of temporary civil servants. Many, from public motives, gave up lucrative positions and joined the Civil Service in a job in which they were most capable of rendering service at a time of national emergency. These people were called upon to pay taxation and when I think of the difficulties which have been overcome in introducing this Bill and the amount of thought and ingenuity which have been given to it—to the great credit of those concerned—I am not in the least impressed by the catalogue of further difficulties which the Chancellor mentioned as a reason for not dealing with this matter. It seems to me that there has been a lack of imagination.
I myself do not like the partial concession which has been made with regard to the hang-over. It seems to be almost mean. It may not be so viewed by the recipients, but it does seem to me to be small and that it would have been better not to have done that. Having listened with care to what has been said, I think there is a grievance which should be remedied. It is widely felt by a large number of people and appeals to the sense of fair play of the community as a whole. I am glad that the Chancellor, as a result of the discussions and conferences of last year, has been able to bring in a Bill which has met with so much approval.

Mr. Eccles: I would like to add my praise for the way in which this Bill, with one exception, seems to give us what we want. With the aid of the Memorandum I think I can understand it fairly well. Clause 6, however, is a stain on the Bill. I would like to return to the question of temporary civil servants, having been one myself, although my financial position is not in question under this Bill, as I was a volunteer. It is not at all a question of the temporary civil servant having suffered double assessment on the same income; it is a question of a double collection. The temporary civil servant came into the

Crown Service with this overhanging liability and then was asked immediately to go on to the Civil Service Pay-as-you-earn scheme. I think a fair example would be that of a man, earning £1,000 a year, married and with two children. If he took up temporary Civil Service employment on 5th April, 1942, and earned £800 a year as his salary, he would find that his monthly income would be reduced to about £25. If he was getting a salary of £1,000, the same as he had in his previous employment, he would get about £33 a month for the first seven months. That created great hardship. I saw it myself in the Civil Service and certain of my colleagues made bargains with the tax inspector, such as my right hon. Friend described, and spread out some of that tax.
That need never have been done. If the Treasury had not been so stiff-necked about it they could have allowed the temporary civil servant to continue to be assessed by his own inspector, leaving the Government, as it were, as the private employer. That would have been a fair thing to do. But the desire for logic overcame wisdom, with the result that we have seen. Under the Bill, it is recognised that when the system of Pay-as-you-earn is applied to everybody these double collections during the first few months will be such a hardship that a discharge is given. That is what the temporary civil servant feels ought to be applied to him as well as to the rest of the community when they go on to Pay-as-you-earn. The Chancellor has told us that it is too difficult to find a method which will give the temporary civil servant the same treatment as other people who are now coming on to Pay-as-you-earn. But as it was the fault of the administration, who got the man into this unfair position, I think they ought to be able to think of a way out.
I have two suggestions to make which might provide a solution. The first is that the temporary civil servant should be forgiven seven-twelfths of his Schedule E liability for the 1942–43 period. If the Treasury do not like paying that to him in cash it could be done either in the form of a post-war credit certificate or set off against his next year's tax. The other way, which is simpler, but would, I agree, involve calculations of which we could not tell the result now, would be to


give the temporary civil servant a discharge of seven-twelfths of any tax which was assessed on his earnings for the first year after he left Crown employment. That would give him the holiday which he expected he would get when he went on to the double collection system on going into the Civil Service. I feel strongly that it is very unfair on temporary civil servants. The "Economist" says that they were the saviours of the State. I think that is putting it a bit high, but when many of them suffered considerably from a financial point of view they thought they would be fairly treated. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adopt one or other of the two suggestions I have made. If he does not, this grievance must persist. I do not think either of the suggestions would be administratively very difficult and I hope we shall get some assurance of that kind.

Mr. Burden: I rise to call attention to a grave injustice which the Bill imposes on railway salaried staffs. The Finance Act, 1918, provides specially for railway salaried staff. It says:
Tax in respect of offices and employments of profit held under a railway company shall be charged by the Special Commissioners, who shall notify to the Secretary or other officer of the Company the particulars of the assessment.
Any such assessment shall be deemed to be, and shall be, an assessment upon the Company, and the tax in respect thereof shall be paid, collected and levied accordingly and the Company or the Secretary or other officer may deduct out of the emoluments of the holder of such office or employment of profit the tax so charged.
I should like to emphasise two points contained in the rule, first that the assessment is on the company and, secondly that the company may deduct the tax from the salaried staff. While the companies have the necessary authority to deduct the Income Tax, obviously they have no legal authority to make any deductions before the assessments are made on them. I am advised that, generally speaking the assessments are received about October or November. For the majority of the salaried staff deductions have been spread over 12 months—April to April—in approximately equal amounts. This has been a matter of mutual convenience and, generally speaking, no exception has been taken to the arrangement, but unfortunately there is no uniformity.
For example, on the London and North Eastern Railway the deductions terminate on 15th April. There is thus an overlap of four weeks' payment in the case of staff paid on a four-weekly basis, and of two weeks in the case of those paid weekly. On the Cheshire Lines Committee there is an overlap up to eight weeks. On the Southern Railway, staff receiving up to £360 in London and £350 in the provinces are on the ordinary commercial arrangement. The tax is deducted from October to November, and there is, therefore, in their case an overlap of seven months. On the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board there will be an overlap of about 13 weeks. The irony of the position is that where the companies have, I agree for mutual convenience, exceeded their authority in making deductions, the staff concerned will be penalised under the new arrangement. To put the point in another way those whose deductions began last April have paid seven-twelfths of their Income Tax earlier than all other Schedule E. payers, and this amount has been deducted before an assessment has been made on the company, and therefore the deductions have been made without any legal authority.
Not only are the salaried staffs of the different companies receiving different treatment but with one company, the Southern Railway, owing to a purely administrative act on the part of the company, some of the staff will get a seven months' remission while others have paid the full amount; and this anomalous position will arise, notwithstanding the fact that all the salaried staff of the railways are taxed, through the companies, under the same Acts of Parliament. The Railway Clerks' Association, on behalf of the salaried staff, does not make any extravagant claim. It does not seek a repayment of the seven months' tax, or it may be, other amounts. It does not even ask for a moratorium, but it asks for an adaptation of the remission arrangements to the peculiar circumstances of the railway companies and the staff. A remission in certain circumstances, with a postponed credit, was suggested by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) to accrue when the person is no longer subject to tax. The railway companies, who in these circumstances find themselves in a most anomalous position, join with the staff in asking that equitable treatment should be accorded to them.
I do not want to over-state the position, but the railway companies find themselves in a most embarrassing position. Will the Chancellor between now and the Committee stage meet representatives of the railway companies and the staff together, to ascertain if it is possible to find an equitable solution of the difficulty? I feel sure that it is possible, even within the four corners of the Chancellor's own formula, no overlap no discharge, to find a satisfactory settlement, and I am encouraged by the Chancellor's courteous and fair-minded treatment of all problems to say I believe he would not desire to leave the railway companies and their salaried staff with the feeling that they have suffered unfair and unjust treatment.

Mr. Summers: I should like first of all to welcome the decision of the Chancellor to deal with these matters in a separate Bill rather than in the Finance Bill, which was the alternative foreshadowed the last time we discussed this topic. I am sure it will be to the satisfaction of many that the final outcome of these decisions shall be known well ahead of the financial year. Before the Bill was published I expected that such controversy as there might be would centre around the safeguards which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he would need to introduce to prevent abuse, but it has turned out somewhat differently. For I, for one, echo the gratification that has been voiced by other speakers at the liberal approach which the Chancellor has shown on this question of safeguards. I feel sure, from the way he has dealt with it, that there should be no innocent people brought within the net and denied their proper discharge in order that guilty people may be punished for their misdeeds. Therefore I do not propose to deal with Clause 8, which should, I think, give general satisfaction.
There are two matters, which I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to allude to, of a relatively unimportant character. The first concerns Clause 7, where emoluments, in spite of the criticism of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), have in the past been lumped with other income for professional purposes. First reading of the Clause suggests that the test as to whether such income is to benefit from Pay-as-you-earn or not is to be the

manner in which particular individuals' tax affairs have been presented in the past. Unless that disparity of treatment is clarified there may be two people, similarly placed in reality, but treated differently because their income has been presented in different ways to the tax collector. I should like the Financial Secretary to see that no difference in treatment is accorded when people are in fact similarly situated.
That prompts me to refer to those who are not included in the Bill, namely, those whose income comes under Schedule D. I make no complaint that they are so included, because we were never promised consideration at this stage, nor do I think it would be appropriate for the two types to be dealt with simultaneously, but there is no question that the advantages which are believed to accrue to those coming under Pay-as-you-earn have prompted many small shopkeepers and others with incomes very little smaller than those under Schedule E to press for consideration of their position. I only ask that their desires should not be lost sight of, and that the ingenuity of the Treasury should, as far as possible, be used to find a way in future to relieve taxpayers of some of the anxious moments which they have when they are no longer enjoying the maintenance of a steady income.
In Clause 5, dealing with the Armed Forces of the Crown, consideration has properly been given to those whose income falls in order that they shall not, out of the smaller income, be called upon to pay tax on the higher income of the year before. I am concerned with the position in which many in the Armed Forces may be placed when they leave the Forces and go into civil employment, because if, when that time comes, they enter a form of employment where Pay-as-you-earn is current, and at the same time have to deal with their liability from their service in the Armed Forces, there will then appear to come a period of double collection of which no account seems to be taken in the Bill. If that is not the correct interpretation and there is an explanation making it easier for such people, I hope we shall have it from the Financial Secretary.
I will now deal with the position of civil servants. I am glad that the Chancellor in his remarks divided the two


categories into which civil servants fall for this purpose into temporary and permanent. High as is my regard for permanent civil servants, I cannot support the claims they make for having their position altered in any way as the result of the introduction of this scheme. My understanding of their position is such that I believe the Chancellor to be entirely justified in saying that their claim is not valid. We may have later in this discussion a contrary view expressed, but that is how it appears to me. The position of the temporary civil servants is very different. I need not take up time elaborating their position, for it has been expressed before, and we had a lucid explanation to-day from the Chancellor as to the nature of their grievances. He did not, however, quite bring out the point, which I am glad was brought out by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) namely, that the period of double collection, which has in many cases been found a hardship, was tolerated in the belief that at some period after the war they would go back into civil employment and enjoy a tax holiday. It is the denial of the opportunity to have recompense through a tax holiday that makes their position particularly grievous. We have heard from the Treasury in the past, indeed, they have put it writing, how practically impossible it was to meet the wishes of hon. Members; and for a considerable time we were told that it was impossible to frame a scheme for Pay-as-you-earn which was practicable. Happily, however, ingenuity triumphed, and we have the present scheme before us.
I for one cannot accept as a good reason for excluding temporary civil servants from some remedial treatment the statement that a way cannot be found. We are told that the difficulties arise from lack of information and that, as I understood the Chancellor, the position of such people during service and after service would need to be taken into account. No doubt that is true, but, even if it be true, my experience of the Inland Revenue is that they have ample information at their disposal to discover what is the proper tax to be paid by the citizens of this country, whether they are living here or elsewhere. I should have thought that it was a perfectly practicable thing to calculate the amount by which double collection has affected individual people in the

service. The tax holiday to which they looked forward was in a sense a gamble, because they could not tell whether the holiday would bring them a greater or lesser advantage than the disadvantage they had suffered on joining the service. Therefore, it seems to me that there will be an added advantage in adopting the first of the two alternative suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Chippenham, namely, that the extent of the double collection be calculated and that sum applied to the coding of Pay-as-you-earn after the war as an allowance to which they would properly be entitled. There would in that way be no need to repay in cash any of the sums which had been paid. Once repayment in cash is started, an undesirable precedent is set up which the Treasury would, not unnaturally, wish to avoid.
As the matter stands under the Bill, those who have gone through great sacrifices to find the means to discharge the two liabilities which were thrust upon them simultaneously are to get nothing, whereas those who went gaily on, not taking any particular notice and, indeed, pressing the Treasury for as much postponement of their liability as they could get, will have their liability discharged. It seems to me a most unreasonable penalty on thrift for the sake of the nation that such people should be denied any advantage, while those who have gone on holding up payment should gain something from the Treasury. I urge strongly that some way be found for recognising the position of temporary civil servants, not necessarily on the lines indicated, so that they may have some compensation for the tax holiday to which they looked forward and which under the Bill they will be denied. I hope that that will be echoed, as it has already been in practically every speech hitherto, that support for improved conditions for the temporary civil servant from all parts of the House will have its due effect on the Chancellor, and that before the Committee stage is reached he may find some way of meeting the wishes that have been so universally expressed.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am happy, with the rest of the House, to join in the general benediction which the Bill as a whole has received. My point of quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a single point of quarrel—for to-day. There


may be other points of quarrel at some other time, but to-day the point of quarrel relates to the treatment of civil servants. I wish to establish beyond the possibility of argument that not only the temporary civil servant but also the permanent civil servant is treated with gross injustice under the Bill. I imagine that my case will be less difficult in regard to the temporary civil servants, because at least two hon. Members on the other side have expressed support of their claim. But as the argument develops I hope to show that the claim of the permanent is no less strong than the case of the temporary. If we are to understand either aright we must try to look at this matter as the civil servant does. He compares his treatment with that given to the ordinary taxpayer in industry or commerce. He finds that for generations the ordinary taxpayer in commerce or industry has been allowed to pay in the current year the tax accruing last year; or, to put it differently, the outside taxpayer has been one year behind his obligations in the matter of paying tax.
The House, for good reasons, decides that from now on instead of a man outside paying tax this year on last year's income, he shall pay it this year on this year's income. When the Chancellor decides that and the House approves, it is recognised that, unless something were to happen, the result of the transition from the old system to the new would be that the outside taxpayer would have to pay two years' tax in one. The Chancellor recognises that, whether that is just or unjust, it is not practicable to apply. Therefore, he decides that he will give relief to the outside taxpayer in respect of that part of the tax due on last year which has not been paid up to the time when the new system takes effect. The effect of that is that there will not be two years' tax paid in one, so far as the outside taxpayer is concerned.
Now take the case of the civil servant. There are, roughly, 700,000 of them, of whom 350,000 are temporary and the remainder permanent. I would like to deal with their cases separately, in order to bring out what we feel should be done with regard to both. When the temporary civil servant came into the Civil Service he was a year or part of a year behind with his payment of tax. I do not mean that he was behind what he ought to have

paid, but that under the old system, whereby a man paid this year in respect of last year, he was not paid up-to-date in the sense that he would be under the Pay-as-you-go plan. When he came into the Service something happened to him. He came under the Civil Service Pay-as-you-go scheme, which has been operated, as I believe quite illegally, for years past. Therefore, the temporary civil servant, in his first year of employment, was required to pay not only the tax that he owed on last year, but the tax accruing upon his current earnings. The effect of these two taxes was so bad that in many cases a man would have had no money left with which to buy food. And in order to avoid that, there was a mitigated arrangement under which the tax was not all collected in one year but was spread over three years. Nevertheless, the Exchequer took the double tax. There is no doubt that the Exchequer has the details. There is no question of not being able to find out how much the Government took from civil servants, because it is there in the books and only requires looking up. So that the difficulty of access quoted by the Chancellor is not a difficulty with any real substance in it.
The temporary civil servant who was treated in this way did not like the double tax. He made vigorous protests about it, and we approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer—not the present Chancellor, but his predecessor, who, in retrospect, appears to me to take on a better complexion, the more I look at his successor! When we approached the Chancellor on this matter he said, "I quite agree that it is very rough on the temporary civil servants, but lift up your eyes to the hills, the very distant hills; when these men come out of the service at the end of their temporary period they will be completely paid up in tax." That meant that they will be a year ahead of the outside taxpayer, who was still allowed to be a year behind. Therefore, they will be entitled automatically, when they come out, to a tax holiday of one year which would compensate for the double tax now.
What emerges very clearly from this Bill is that the tax holiday at the end of their period of service is taken away from the 350,000 temporary civil servants. Therefore, unless something else happens they will be much worse off than


they are at the present time, by the loss of a year's tax holiday. What does the Chancellor propose to give them instead? To the vast majority he proposes to give nothing at all. To a limited number he will excuse the tax which may still remain to be paid, on their earlier "outside" earnings, as at 6th April this year. The first point I want to make is that, in the case of the vast bulk of civil servants, their liability in respect of their outside earnings has long since been liquidated. In other words, to that vast number the Chancellor gives nothing at all, having taken away a year's tax holiday.
Now let us look at those who will get some benefit, and who probably will still have some tax outstanding on outside earnings when it comes to 6th April this year. It will occur to every Member of this House that the longer a man spends in the service as a temporary civil servant, the less likely is it that he will still be taxable on his outside previous earnings. That is inevitable. In other words, those who have been longest in the service in a temporary capacity will get the least benefit under such concession as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given, while those who have been there the shortest time will get the maximum benefit from the concession. There is another point. The more honest a man was before he came into the Civil Service—after which he has to be honest compulsorily—and the more completely he kept up-to-date with his tax obligations, the less obligation did he carry into his Civil Service period in respect of his pre-service earnings. On the other hand, the less conscientious he was and the less up-to-date with his Income Tax payment, the greater would be the amount of tax liability carried into the Civil Service. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only prefers the new to the old, the late entrant to the earlier entrant, but he prefers the unconscientious man to the conscientious man, because the less conscientious he was the more likely he is to qualify for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to give. In that respect, I affirm that the case which has been made out here in regard to the temporary civil servant is completely unanswerable. I believe that the House shares that view.
Now I turn to a case which is a little more difficult to present, but which is just as important, that of the per-

manent civil servant. Like the temporary civil servant, the permanent civil servant has been subjected to the experience of having to pay two years' tax in one. Let me make that quite clear.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Over a long period?

Mr. Brown: No, in one year. The only difference is that in the case of the permanent civil servant—it may have been years ago—it was in his first year as a permanent civil servant—and not last year or the year before, that he was subjected, although not in exactly the same way as the temporary, to the double tax.

Mr. Cluse: Would it not have been in his second year?

Mr. Brown: No, in his first year, but, for the time being, let me assume that it was his second year, if hon. Members will give me the point for which I am asking, which is that he did pay double tax in one year.

Mr. Mathers: How many permanent civil servants did come from other employment?

Mr. Brown: A very substantial number. Taking the area of the Civil Service which I represent, I should think that at least half the total number came into it from outside occupations. The permanent civil servant of to-day is largely the temporary civil servant of yesterday. As the House of Commons knows, it established thousands of ex-Servicemen——

Sir Alfred Beit: The hon. Member has been putting his case as though the permanent civil servant who went straight into the service from school had paid a double tax, but he now implies that this is true only of those who went into the service from outside.

Mr. Brown: I did not intend to do anything of the kind. There are two kinds of permanent civil servant. One is the ex-temporary civil servant, with outside experience in industry and commerce before he went into the service. There are, literally, scores of thousands of them. It is true that there are numbers of men who came in quite young, but the whole point is that if they had been liable to tax they would have paid it, and that they were not automatically exempt.

Mr. Cluse: Those who came from school would not pay the double tax.

Mr. Brown: It was only the circumstance that they had not had an income which resulted in the fact that they did not pay double tax. They were liable to it in principle.

Mr. Cluse: They did not pay it in fact?

Mr. Brown: Thousands did pay it, in fact, and all of them were liable to it, in principle, if they were assessable to Income Tax. In all the years since they have paid their tax currently, that is to say, not this year in respect of last year, but up to date. In respect of their own servants, the Government took the taxation a year before it was due—as I think, illegally—and they not only took the tax a year before it was due, but they enjoyed the usufruct on the tax. Not only has the permanent civil servant, in principle, and in many cases in fact, the same grievance as the temporary, but he has had 5 years, or 10, 15 or 20 years of his tax taken a year before anybody else, and has been losing his interest upon it.

Sir A. Beit: When was this type of civil servant going to enjoy his tax holiday?

Mr. Brown: At the end of his period of service. Under the old system, when he came to the end of his service, he would be fully paid-up, and when he became a member of the outside public he would be entitled to a tax holiday. In principle, therefore, in respect of tax holidays, and in respect of double taxation, there is no difference between these two classes. The main difference, in fact, has been that the permanent civil servant has for many years had to pay his tax a year before it was due. In that respect, his case is stronger than that of the temporary. In respect of him, the Government propose in this Bill to give not a bean. We are told that it is too difficult. I see the Attorney-General sitting on the Government front bench. I know how willing he is to place his great intellect at the service of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Chancellor's should need fortification. Surely both of them together, assisted by the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, can work out a scheme which will enable them to do justice.
Let me suggest what ought to be done in both cases In the case of the temporary civil servant, the Exchequer knows precisely the amount of the double taxation. It cannot be that the State has collected money without having kept a record of what was collected. In my view, the temporary civil servant is entitled, on merit, to an immediate repayment, in hard cash, of one-half of the tax that he paid in the year when he paid two taxes in one. That is what he is entitled to, on merits, to bring him into line. Under the Bill, a man outside who has paid a whole year's tax in advance, is to be repaid the rebate in cash. We can repay in cash people outside who pay in advance but we cannot do so in respect of our own civil servants.

Sir F. Sanderson: May I ask whether the hon. Member can give us an approximate idea of the cost of the scheme he is now propounding?

Mr. Brown: I was about to say—and I always get there in the end—that I am not asking for this payment in cash, although I think we are entitled to ask for it. But we are entitled to say that you should give to the temporary civil servant a rebate. I am not even asking for a rebate on this year's tax, but for a rebate which he can set off against his tax liability when he ceases to be a civil servant, and goes into the world again.
In respect of the permanent civil servant I should be entitled, on merits, to ask, first, that the Government should pay back one-half of the double tax that was first inflicted on him, should pay him interest for every year for which that taxation was improperly used by taking it from him a year before it was due, and that the Government should hand it to the civil servant with an apology for their past misconduct. That would be the appropriate demand to make in respect of the permanent civil servant. But so great is our modesty that we do not even make that claim. We do not ask for cash here either. We ask that, at the end of a man's years of service, he should have a rebate of the amount by which he has, in our submission, been overtaxed. Generous forbearance can hardly go further than that, even from me. I submit that those demands are as modest and reasonable as they can well be.
I have been told that the grievance of the permanent civil servant is not very serious, because it is an old one. There are two or three answers to that. The first is that time does not hallow injustice, but, on the contrary, makes it more irksome the longer it lasts. Next I am told that the civil servant has only just discovered this grievance. Well, I remember a story of two sons, the elder of whom stayed at home and worked faithfully for his father, while the younger wasted his substance in riotous living. It is not recorded that there was any protest from the elder son whatever, until the wasteful one came home, and the father killed the fatted calf. At that time the grievance was brought to explosion point, not merely because of its own merits, but because of the contrast between the treatment of one son and another.
The Chancellor can kill the fatted calf for the outside taxpayer but he declines the barest minimum of justice to his own servants. May I add this; that when the elder son complained of the relative injustice of his treatment, the father endeavoured to console him by saying to him, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine"; but has the Chancellor said that to us? Is there any prospect at all that he is going to say anything like that to us? Not a bit. We are subjected to the same injustice, as the elder son, but we are not given the consolation of being the father's heir.
I want to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: If I cannot touch his heart can I touch his head? I want to tell him one thing. I will not speculate upon the Chancellor and the Prime Ministership but I think that if there are two more by-election letters and one more Italian campaign, something will have to happen in Britain, and it may well be that the Chancellor is destined to be the Prime Minister's successor. I want to warn him——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I think that a warning had better be applied to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: I did not want to do anything more than introduce a little lightness into what has been a somewhat heavy argument. In governing the English you must do so on the basis of "fair-do's." In

dealing with the Scots it is different. You can govern them on the basis of dubious metaphysics, but you must govern the English on the basis of "fair-do's." We are not getting "fair-do's" here. My appeal is to the Chancellor's head. Who is to apply this Bill? Civil servants in the Treasury and other Departments of State. Is it wise to make the very civil servants who have to apply this Bill feel at the beginning of its application that they have had a thoroughly unfair treatment? I remember when I was a little boy getting a job as an errand boy to a fruiterer. When I first went into that job the sight of peaches, pears, apples and oranges was gratifying to my eye and disturbing to my throat. My governor saw that I looked at this fruit with some interest. He said, "Willie, do you want some of it, because you can eat whatever you like, whenever you like?" I said, "Do you really mean that?" thinking that he had under-calculated my appetite. He said, "Certainly." I took some advantage of his offer. I thought at first it was generosity. It was not; it was calculation. It was cheaper to allow a little boy to gorge on fruit for a week until the thing had become commonplace, than to make it forbidden fruit, with the prospect that he would pinch some day after day. In short, my governor had achieved in his own experience a recognition of the truth of the philosophy embodied in the old phrase:
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
What does the Chancellor do with us? He does not only muzzle us while we are treading out the corn; for years he has cut down on our standard rations of hay as well! What I am asking him is merely to restore our rations. It is neither wise, fair nor expedient of us to leave this Bill without seeing that these two wrongs are put right. There is no mathematical difficulty about it. There is no question of paying out sums of money from the cash bag now. There is no administrative difficulty about it, no vast immediate charge on the Exchequer. It is not so much a charge on the Exchequer as something that will not accrue, and I submit that the Chancellor has made no case whatever in what he said to-day for refusing to do justice on this question.
I like this Bill as a whole, and I do not want to divide the House against it, but


I warn the Chancellor with the utmost emphasis that I intend to fight this Bill with every Parliamentary resource at my disposal if this injustice is not put right. I will move Amendments to the Bill in Committee, I will vote against the Third Reading, I will speak on the Report stage if that is possible. And if we cannot get it righted in this House I will ask the Prime Minister to send me to the other place in order that I may go along there and carry on the struggle. It is admitted that there is little money in this. It is a fleabite compared with what the House has provided in respect of this Bill. But there is the important principle to be observed that justice, like charity, should begin at home. And our first and not our last responsibility ought to be to see that our civil servants, for whom we are responsible, are treated as least as fairly and reasonably as the outside public, from whose pockets they have to take this Pay-as-you-earn tax.

Mr. Palmer: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) in dealing with the question of civil servants, whether temporary or permanent, but I was a little surprised at the grounds he put forward when he was appealing to the Chancellor's head. I think there was just a little implication behind his remarks that civil servants could not be relied upon to carry out the terms of this Bill unless they themselves felt that they were getting "fair-do's." I am sure that he did not wish to convey that impression.

Mr. Brown: If I said anything even remotely to create that impression, let me withdraw it straight away. But let me add that civil servants can suffer from discouragement and that it would not be wise to make that discouragement worse.

Mr. Palmer: I am very glad to have elicited that. I was sure that the hon. Member did not mean to give the impression mentioned. If I may deal with the point of view of the Forces, I am sure that everyone will very much welcome the provisions in Clause 5, because there are some definite advantages which members of the Forces will gain in relation to downward variations of their pay. I happen to have with me two examples of the kind of thing that happens to officers when they revert in rank. For example, when a lieutenant-colonel, who gets 43s.

a day, reverts to the rank of major at 28s. a day he is taxed on the bigger income. There are other examples regarding other cases that will be relieved, and that is a great gain from everybody's point of view. As regards the wounded, we may, unfortunately, have to look forward to a great many more such cases in this coming year, and this Measure will give assistance there. Many officers have been given temporary or acting ranks for all kinds of jobs which have arisen, and it has been impossible for them to make proper provision for being caught by this taxation when they revert. Another class to benefit will be the members of the Regular Forces who will leave the Service and possibly revert to a substantive rank after the war.
But having given that welcome to Clause 5 I must add my voice in support of those who wish to urge on the Chancellor and everybody connected with him to think again over the subject of remission. There is no doubt at all that these people in the Forces are not adequately paid. I do not want to go into that. I have always said that I am dissatisfied with Service rates of pay, I do not think we have ever done what we should in that direction, but we cannot discuss that today. Many officers have been reverted, which has created an enormous number of quite unnecessary cases of hardship, and we are only now endeavouring to put it right after four and a half years of war. Surely we cannot treat this in a purely literal way? We must have some liberality of outlook in trying to find an answer.
I was very surprised at one argument the Chancellor used. He said it would be too difficult, because people are scattered about all over the world. I thought that was a remarkable argument, or at any rate would appear very remarkable to those people scattered all over the world who are always found when it is a question of collecting their taxes. I do not see that that argument would make much appeal to them. But I do not think, either, that any very elaborate arguments as to the exact reason why this proposal could not be made fair will appeal. Those concerned would much prefer some kind of rough justice which is not related to an exact, precise formula that makes sure everybody is treated absolutely fairly all round. They would prefer a kind of rough


justice which had the appearance of trying to be fair all round, although it is obvious that it cannot be done to the last penny in every case. I am sure that some simple device can be found if the Chancellor and the Treasury really set their minds to it. I ask no more than that. I do not want to make specific suggestions. I only suggest that the seven-twelfths formula should somehow be involved in the answer. I am clear that if the Chancellor does not do that he will be perpetuating what those concerned will consider to be an unnecessary grievance.

Mr. Benson: I think this Bill is rather a unique Bill. It is a Bill which has been forced upon the Government by the House. From the very begining of the demand for Pay-as-you-earn the Government have resisted and the House has won a steady series of engagements against the Government. We were told first of all that Pay-as-you-earn was quite an impossible and impracticable suggestion, and instead of having a Pay-as-you-earn scheme we were given the modifications of the weekly deductions. Then, rather, I think, to the surprise of many of us, the Board of Inland Revenue produced a very brilliant cumulative scheme. Again it was limited in its operation, limited to manual workers and weekly wage-earners or rather earners who were paid within periods of less than a month. In the first Bill the Chancellor was compelled to extend its operation to all Schedule E incomes up to £600. As a result of further pressure it was extended to all Schedule E incomes irrespective of amount. Now there is still one further point of resistance by the Exchequer, that is with regard to the treatment of temporary civil servants. There have, of course, been demands by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for all civil servants, and I think the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) has pegged out a claim for railway servants. But there has been no great feeling in the House on either of these two cases.
On the other hand, with regard to the treatment of the temporary civil servant I think there is complete unanimity. We have heard the case for the permanent civil servants put up by the hon. Member for Rugby. Frankly, I do not think it impressed the House. It was very amus-

ing, but not convincing. But the House is absolutely convinced that something must be done for the temporary civil servant. The case for the differentiation of the temporary civil servant from the permanent civil servant can be put almost in a sentence. Of all the classes affected by this Bill only one suffers a definite deprivation. The permanent civil servant may not get an advantage that other people get, but he has no right taken away from him; his position is merely left unchanged. That is not the case of the temporary civil servant. He looked forward to receiving a remission of taxation as soon as he returned to ordinary employment. That is a right that he had, and still has until this Bill is passed. We are proposing to take that right away from him. I do not think we are entitled to take away this perfectly legitimate right without a very much stronger case than has been put up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor did not challenge the equity of the temporary civil servants' demand; he admitted it. He based his case on the difficulties. But he created those difficulties himself. The question of whether a temporary civil servant bettered himself by leaving his other employment to go into the Civil Service, or whether he will lose when he goes back to ordinary employment, is absolutely irrelevant. The fact is that this group has suffered loss, thinking that it was likely to be corrected in a very short time, and now we are taking away the possibility of that correction. The difficulties which the Chancellor mentioned are just as notional as the losses with which he tried to scare us on the last Measure relating to this scheme. The Chancellor has had to give way to the pressure of the House on every other point since Pay-as-you-earn was first discussed, and he ought to give way on this.
There is another group which is entirely analogous to the temporary civil servants. That is the temporary railway employees. I do not think the point was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Park Divisions. He referred to the bulk of railway employees, who have always suffered deduction on current earnings, but the temporary railway employee when he went into the railway service suffered double reduction. If anything is done for the temporary civil servants, that concession ought to be enjoyed also by the temporary


railway employees. There is a certain number of people who during war-time will be directed from their own private businesses, where they now pay Income Tax under Schedule D, into employment, and they will then come under the Pay-as-you-earn scheme of Schedule E. Anybody directed to take up employment who has hitherto been in business on his own—a small shopkeeper, for example—will have to meet the liability of his previous year's assessment under Schedule D in addition to his current year's obligation. That problem will arise inevitably right through the history of Income Tax. Where a man voluntarily goes from Schedule D to Schedule E that is not a matter for the Chancellor to take into account, but where under the National Service Acts, a man is directed into employment, he will not only suffer compulsion at the hands of the Minister of Labour but he will suffer double deduction at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir J. Anderson: He will be able to go back to Schedule D.

Mr. Benson: He may; but is the Chancellor going to guarantee that he will get his little shop back?

Sir J. Anderson: No.

Mr. Benson: Then he cannot say that he will go back to Schedule D. I am not asking for a definite answer now, but here is a grievance which is really limited to war-time conditions and compulsory direction, and I hope that before this Bill goes through we shall have some indication of whether the Chancellor is prepared to meet what is a definite hardship. With that criticism of his attitude over the temporary civil servant and that query about the man who compulsorily goes from Schedule D to Schedule E, I, like the rest of the House, welcome the Bill as a whole, and hope that it will have an easy passage.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom): I rise to reinforce what has been said about the application to the Forces of the remission scheme. I hope that whoever winds up the Debate will give some indication that the Government will look into this matter and remove what the Chancellor himself has admitted is a legitimate point of criticism. It cannot be fair that the Forces should

be treated any worse than any other section of the community; indeed, in many ways the proper thing would be to treat them better than other sections. That is the major fault of this Bill. I accept what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brawn) has said, and I think he made a very strong case for those for whom he speaks. The fact that the remission scheme does not apply to members of the Forces is an injustice which I think the Government ought to remedy.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The House is to-day celebrating the introduction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Bill to embody mainly the pledges which he gave to the House last autumn. I think it is the general opinion of the House—in fact, it has been expressed by everyone who has spoken in this Debate—that, so far as the pledge which he made to include persons whose incomes were in excess of £600 a year is concerned, he has implemented it not merely to the full but generously. He has done even more than he promised. When he came to the points on which he had reserved judgment, he has not found it necessary to proceed with as much reservation and difficulty as he anticipated he would have to do. I think that the friendly greetings which the Bill has received from all sections of the House bear that out, and I would like to take my share in those congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the House and the general public would be interested to know what is the total effect of the whole of this legislation. This Bill extends the Act which we have already passed, and, together with that Act, makes a considerable change in the Income Tax law. It would be of interest if the Financial Secretary, when he comes to reply—or if he has not the data available, at some later date—could answer these three questions.
In the first place, what is the total amount of Income Tax which, when this Bill is pased, will have been transferred on to the new basis as a result of all this legislation, and what proportion does that part which has been thus transferred bear to the whole collection of Income Tax? In the second place, I think people want to know whether the assessment of Surtax is in any way affected by the passage of this legislation, and, if so, to what extent. In the third place, combining all this legis-


lation last autumn and this Bill with the previous practice of collecting a certain part of the Income Tax at the source and another part in the year in which the income accrues, what is the total amount of Income Tax collected in the year in which the income accrues, and what is the total amount collected in subsequent years? If the Financial Secretary is able to give this information, we shall get a picture of the magnitude of the problem with which we have been dealing by this legislation; and it will be useful in enabling us to realise what has been done.
I come to unstatistical matters. This Bill is, broadly speaking, designed to tidy up the loose ends of the Act which we have already passed. I think I should be permitted to make a reference to one small matter which has been brought to my attention since the Act was passed, in which it seems that there is a loose end which is not very satisfactorily tied up. I understand that by the Act which we have already passed and the means by which the Inland Revenue put it into operation, a man who is paid a weekly wage can be up-coded—if that is the correct phrase—in the course of the year, and he cannot be down-coded. If I have not used the right words, the Financial Secretary will understand from my illustration. Suppose a man has born to him in the course of the year a child. We know quite well that his code can be altered, and that, as a result, he gets immediately a certain remission of taxation, because the amount which he should pay each week will be less than it otherwise would have been, and he is immediately entitled to some refund owing to the weeks he has already paid on the larger basis. Suppose his child is born in March. Although that is after the time of assessment for the following year, at any time thereafter the facts can be brought to the attention of the Inland Revenue authorities, and the necessary alteration will be made.
On the opposite side of the picture, suppose that in March of any year a man loses his wife, or one of his children dies. Then, of course, it should be that in the following year he should pay on a higher basis, because he would be subject to a smaller amount of deduction and allowance, but in so far as his assessment has already been made, I am given to

understand that that alteration cannot be effected, and therefore for the whole of the following year he will pay too small an amount of tax, with the result that, at the end of the year, he will be confronted by a considerable bill for arrears. I do not know whether I have made myself quite clear, but I think I have put the point sufficiently clearly for it to be looked into by the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, the Inland Revenue authorities may see whether some arrangements could be made to meet this case which raises the precise objections which people had to the old scheme, namely that, at the end of the year, a man found himself in debt to the Inland Revenue. The sum might easily be £20 or £30, or, if he had lost two members of his family, might well be £50 or £60. The point might be looked into and some consideration given to it.
I come now to what is in the Bill. There are certain sections of the Bill to which I wish to make special reference. I need not make more than a passing reference to the temporary civil servants, because that point has been dealt with, I think, by almost every Member who has spoken, and the Chancellor himself has admitted that he is thoroughly favourable and sympathetic on this matter. I would like him to have a further look at it, because we do feel that here a definite and specific injustice is being wrought, for as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said, these people are having a definite right taken away from them, and, therefore, it is not too much to ask that something should be done to compensate them in some way. Now we come to the question of the permanent civil servant. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) made out what, no doubt, seemed to him a very strong case. I do not think the House as a whole was greatly impressed by his argument, but I do want to put one point to the Chancellor, because I believe that, as a matter of equity, the whole House is really agreed.
The equity is this. No one in this House, except perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby, and he did not put his argument on this basis, claims that because there are a number of halfpence being given away to certain people everyone has a right to his share of the pool. If, however, the claim of the civil servant is


merely that, at a time when things are going well for certain classes of Schedule E taxpayers they, in common with other sections of the people, are entitled to a share of the junketing themselves, I do not think the House will support that point of view, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting it, will, I think, receive the support of the House. But if it is possible for the civil servants to prove, and if the hon. Member for Rugby can show, that in any way they are suffering hardship as a result of this legislation, then I think it would be the wish of the House to try to give them some compensation. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced his Bill in the autumn of last year he did not include civil servants, and it was because the hon. Member for Rugby seemed to show that civil servants should be included that the right hon. Gentleman, rather precipitately, as I thought, accepted the idea.

Sir J. Anderson: It was not precipitate. I deliberately delayed coming to a decision, because I myself was not in agreement with the view put forward by the Service Association, and I even went to the length of having a special message sent to the Service Association to make quite sure whether they wanted this change. A great many civil servants are on acting rates of pay. When they return to substantive rates they may suffer, and they may gain under the new system where they would have suffered under the old from having to pay on the lower rates tax on the higher. Many civil servants are receiving very much more by overtime, and they benefit from being transferred. It was only when I was thoroughly satisfied that they knew what was involved, and that it was really their desire to come into this system, that I agreed to it. It really was not precipitate, and I would not like that word to go out.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I withdraw it, certainly, but I am coming to a point which I should be glad to have cleared up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after due consideration, fully agreed with the proposal from the hon. Member for Rugby, which was, as I understand from what the Chancellor says now, supported by some, at any rate, of the Civil Service organisations, though he himself has agreed that certain civil servants, so far from benefiting from the change, will

in fact suffer a good deal of loss. I have a letter here from one Civil Service organisation and I do not think there is anything confidential about it that I should not disclose. It is the Exchequer and Audit Department Association, and they have never consented to this change. They point out that, in almost every case, all their members will suffer loss, and they are asking the Chancellor in particular to give them an option. I am not going into that particular suggestion except to say that it might well be "Heads I win, tails you lose." What they do say is that a civil servant who is on a rising scale would on the change over to Pay-as-you-earn in all following years suffer a loss.
I do not think the House wants civil servants, or a large section of them, to suffer that loss without some compensating advantage, and if as a result of the Chancellor's decision made in the autumn—a decision not made precipitately, but after careful consideration—there are a number of civil servants who will suffer, at any rate, temporary loss, I think the House would wish the Chancellor to make some compensation in these cases. I do not know sufficient about the precise method of charging Income Tax in the Civil Service to be able to say, but I gather that they say that not only would they suffer a temporary loss but, taking their period of service as a whole, a final loss; but that may be wrong. If that were so, it would be a strong argument that the Chancellor should make them some compensation. I am not coming to any final decision on this matter at this moment. I am only trying to explain to the Chancellor that if civil servants do not suffer any loss by this legislation, but are merely claiming to come in on the ground that, where there is money going they ought to have some of it, then I think the House would support the Chancellor in rejecting that plea. If it be true, as this body maintains, that considerable numbers of civil servants are by this change suffering temporary and possibly permanent loss, then I think the House should see that some compensation should be given to them.
I come now to Clause 7. I think I am the first hon. Member to draw attention to Clause 7. I do not think the process involved in it was referred to in our previous discussions, and I am not very well


informed about this and may have got it wrong. I understand that there are certain professional people who receive money in their own pockets, like a doctor, which is quite clearly a Schedule D matter, because they could never give an account of it until the end of the year. There are professional men who have these fees and who also receive a salary, whose income is received in these two separate ways, part in the form of fees and part in the form of salary, like a resident doctor in a hospital. For the convenience of the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue, that part of their emoluments which is in the form of salary which would logically have been dealt with under Schedule E and the part they have received as fees under Schedule D have hitherto both been classed under Schedule D in order to save the trouble of having it in two classes. This method is to continue. I am not quite clear whether that will operate against them in these changes. Strictly speaking, there should be the basis of Schedule E for salary and Schedule D for fees. I should think that, where other taxpayers are being changed over to the Pay-as-you-earn basis and are getting this discharge, it would not be an unreasonable proposal if the emoluments of such a man were cut in two so that he would receive the same treatment as any other man receiving income under Schedule E. After all, I do not suppose that these are the only people with incomes coming within two Schedules, and I really do not see why, because for administrative purposes these two sets of income have been classed together under Schedule D, that fact should operate against them so far as the provisions of this Bill and legislation as a whole are concerned. I would like to repeat that we do appreciate very much the way the Chancellor has more than fulfilled his pledge given to us in the Autumn, and we shall wish this Bill a happy and speedy passage to the Statute Book.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): The whole House has welcomed the Bill which the Chancellor has introduced to-day and there have been criticisms only on certain matters of detail, most of which will fall to be discussed when the House meets in Committee. The main criticism which has been levelled at the Bill concerns the

treatment of the question of Income Tax discharge in the case of certain civil servants and temporary civil servants and also in the case raised by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) of certain railway servants. By and large, the House has welcomed the Bill and it has recognised that it has certainly carried out the pledge which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave late last year. I will try to deal with some of the points which have been raised and if I fail to deal with them all, hon. Members know that there will be opportunities in the Committee stage to deal with those which are suitable to be dealt with then.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked a number of questions, and I will give him answers where I can. He asked, in the first instance, what is the total amount of Income Tax which will have been transferred to the new basis when this Bill comes to be passed. I cannot give him a very exact figure, but it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £550,000,000. It represents nearly one-half of the total Income Tax charge for a full year. If, later on, I am able to give him a more exact figure I shall be very happy to do so. My right hon. Friend asked, is the assessment of Surtax for 1943–44 and for subsequent years affected by the alteration, and if so, to what extent? As far as Surtax is concerned, all hon. Members are aware that it is not collectible under Pay-as-you-earn, but I understand there is a certain amount of doubt about that which may as well be set at rest. Surtax will remain due for payment as before on 1st January. The amount of the Surtax assessment is, however, affected by the change in the normal basis of assessment under Schedule E from the preceding year to the current year basis. The basis of assessment of Surtax follows that of the standard rate of Income Tax, and it is useful that that should be known. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of making it plain.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: There was a further point. The income for Surtax purposes is the statutory income for a certain previous year. Does the fact of altering the assessment year for the Income Tax in any way affect the date of the statutory


year, which is taken as the basis of Surtax for the year?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not a fact that it affects not only the year of assessment but the rate? I understood from what he said that it probably did so. Supposing the rate changes between one year and another, which year will be taken as the rate for the payment of Super-tax?

Mr. Assheton: It certainly does not affect the rate of tax.

Mr. Hall: If the rate changes from year to year?

Mr. Assheton: No, Sir, it does not affect that. The amount of the Surtax assessment is affected by the change because of the change in the normal basis of assessment under Schedule E, from the preceding year to the current year basis, and the Surtax assessment does, in fact, follow the standard rate of Income Tax. In the case of an individual who, under the Bill as it now stands, will have an increased Income Tax assessment, because he is to be assessed on his current earnings instead of on the earnings of the previous year, it is clear that the change will affect the Surtax assessment. That is the point that my right hon. Friend wanted cleared up.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), whose speech I, unfortunately, missed, asked, I understand, if there was a right of appeal against an additional assessment under Clause 8. The right of appeal of every taxpayer against an assessment is entirely unaffected by this Bill or by the provisions of the previous Act which we passed last year. My hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield raised an awkward question about certain railway employees and the answer to him is the same as the answer on the question of the temporary civil servant. There is no doubt whatever that the principle which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has maintained all through, that there is no discharge of Income Tax unless there is an overlap, applies in the case of railway companies. There are certain railway servants whose Income Tax has been deducted in such a way that there will be an overlap on 6th April next. The amount of the over-

lap of tax will be discharged. It is, perhaps, not fully understood by all railway servants that that is the position. My hon. Friend wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go further and make a concession, which he is unable to make, either in the case of railway servants or in the case of civil servants.

Mr. Burden: I asked whether it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to receive representatives of the railway companies and of the men together to discuss this problem. Can the Financial Secretary let me have a reply to that question?

Mr. Assheton: I understand that interviews have already taken place between both parties and I am not sure that any use would come of a further interview, but if my hon. Friend thinks that it would be of use, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be happy to arrange for such interview to take place. But I do not wish to encourage my hon. Friend to think that he will get any advantage from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) made one or two points. He seemed to be under a slight misapprehension about the application of the scheme in relation to the Armed Forces. I am not sure that it is clear in his mind that under the present arrangements the deduction of Income Tax from members of the Armed Forces is completed in the year for which the Income Tax is charged and that there should not, therefore, be an overlap when they return to civilian life. I am not saying that there are not certain circumstances in which there have been great difficulties in making the assessments and that there are not exceptions but, broadly speaking that is the rule, and no alteration of the law will improve the matter from the point of view of difficulty of administration. My hon. Friend raised a point similar to that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. It is rather a difficult one and relates to the position of certain professional men whose earnings would normally be assessed both under Schedule D and Schedule E. I appreciate the point but I would ask that it should be fully discussed when we come to the Committee stage. It is not an easy one and it is not very convenient to dispose of it now. I think I have covered all the main points


that were raised in the Debate except the two principal criticisms of the Bill, namely, the way it affects both the permanent civil servant and the temporary civil servant.

Mr. Palmer: Do I understand the Financial Secretary to include the Forces in that category?

Mr. Assheton: The same considerations apply to all Crown servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) made the point that both permanent civil servants and temporary civil servants were being treated unjustly. He used the phrase "gross injustice" and I want to clear the Board of Inland Revenue and my right hon. Friend from any such suggestion. There is no question of injustice arising at all. No taxpayer under the arrangements provided for in this Bill will be called upon or has been called upon to pay more than the tax on the amount of income which he has earned. All that happens is that, in order to make it possible to introduce the new Pay-as-you-earn system smoothly, certain fortunate persons will receive a discharge of tax which was owing, and I can well understand, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, that there may be a certain amount of not unreasonable envy on the part of those who are in a less favourable position. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby quoted one of the parables. May I remind him of the parable of the men who worked in the vineyard? In that case, my hon. Friend will remember, those who worked in the last hour received a penny, which was the same amount as that paid to those who had worked all the 12 hours.

Mr. Brown: Suppose that parable had read that those who turned up in the last hour got more than a penny and those who worked less hard got still more than a penny an hour, he might revise his opinion of that parable.

Mr. Magnay: Mr. Magnay (Gateshead) rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I think the discussion on parables has gone far enough.

Mr. Magnay: It is of great consequence that the parable should be understood. One is——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot have that interpretation now.

Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby started this exchange of parables and I was trying to show that there might be cases in which there was an unequal treatment of persons, without injustice arising. There was no injustice because the man who worked the whole 12 hours of the day bargained to work for a penny and got his penny, but he naturally felt envious of the man who worked only one hour and received a penny. Similarly, there are a number of taxpayers who feel envious that other taxpayers should have the advantage of a discharge of tax.
I want to point out to the House that there are a large number of taxpayers who are unfortunate and who do not get any advantage from the discharge of tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out from the first that the discharge of tax was not desirable or equitable, but was merely introduced in order to make the scheme go. Look at the case of your Schedule D taxpayers, your farmers, your small shopkeepers and your professional men. None of them benefits by getting any discharge of tax, because it so happens that in their case there is no overlap. Members of Parliament provide another illustration. Members of Parliament would, in fact, benefit if we were to adopt the proposals which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby suggests, because Members of Parliament would then be entitled to a discharge and it is, therefore, particularly desirable that we should give this matter our most earnest consideration and not be led into adopting an Amendment unless we are satisfied it is the right and proper thing to do.
I want to make it clear that there is no question of injustice. No taxpayer is being called upon to pay tax upon more than he has earned. No civil servant who has been in the service of the Crown has been called upon to pay tax upon more than he has earned, nor will he be called upon to do so, and it is not right for the hon. Member for Rugby to say it is unjust. He may say that there are differences of treatment, between one man and another, but no taxpayer is being treated unjustly. I think it ought to be made clear that the position of the temporary civil servant has some very


special features and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed to the House the very great sympathy he feels with the difficult position in which they find themselves. He has given illustrations to the House of men who have come into the Civil Service, in many cases at a considerable sacrifice, and who in consequence of so doing have found themselves liable during a period of time to a double burden of taxation. But it must not be thought by anyone in the House that, even in those cases, taxation was paid twice on the same income. It was merely that the incidence of taxation arising from two separate incomes happened to fall at the same period of time, and any civil servant who has paid up to the last farthing has, by now, paid tax on anything which he has earned and received and so, there again, there is not an injustice. But there is a hardship here which my right hon. Friend wanted to find a way of meeting, and the only way in which he has been able to meet the difficulty is by the proposal made in this Bill that what is outstanding should be discharged. It has been pointed out, truly enough, that that is a discrimination between one taxpayer and another, and it is not one which is welcome to the Chancellor, because undoubtedly the discharge very often benefits the taxpayer who has not done as much to meet his liability as some other fellow taxpayer has done. That is recognised, but what is the solution?
We have not been given any solution which is practicable. It is easy enough for hon. Members to criticise these things, but when you are making reforms on a scale of this sort—and this is a big reform—there are always liable to be difficulties. Do not let us forget that the only difficulty which arises is a temporary one. It is not permanent, and it is not going to be a flaw in the legislation for the future. We have to bear that in mind. In future, these difficulties of passing from one employment to another in Schedule E, will be overcome and that will be a great advantage to everybody, but it does leave certain taxpayers, who are temporarily employed as civil servants, with a feeling of grievance. The only way it is possible to meet that grievance, is by remitting a certain amount of tax in cases such as those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer

has described. I think it ought to be made clear that it is not easy to find a solution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby seems to think it is.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that, in effect, no benefit is given until a taxpayer either retires or dies?

Mr. Assheton: In this particular case perhaps I might make it clear that the temporary civil servant would, before we altered the law, have found himself in the happy position of having seven months without tax to pay, on leaving the Government service at the end of the war. We must not forget, also, that as a result of having that tax holiday for seven months, when he retired or died there would have been seven months' tax to pay, and so it is not really to the disadvantage of the temporary civil servant. Now when he retires or dies, he or his executors will not be in the unfortunate position of having to find a certain sum of money at a time when it is, usually, particularly difficult to find it. I wanted to make it quite clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby that there were practical difficulties such as this.
Let us take an illustration. Suppose there was a man who, before the war and before he went into the Services, was earning nothing. What about that? Take again the case of the man who before he went into the service of the Crown was earning a very great deal, say £5,000 a year, and after going into the Services was only earning 2s. 6d. a day. It is not going to be easy to assess the amount with which it would be reasonable to recompense him on the lines which have been suggested by various hon. Members. I only want to put to the House the difficulties and to show them that a solution of these problems has not been found. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his sympathy with the case. He told the House he had done what he could in the Bill to meet it, and if any hon. Member is able to provide a solution at any time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would be very glad to hear of it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

INCOME TAX (OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS)

Resolved,
That where a person holds an office or employment in the year 1943–44 under such circumstances that the emoluments thereof are assessable to income tax under Schedule E by reference to the amount thereof for the previous year of assessment, and the actual emoluments arising from that office or employment for the year 1943–44 or any previous year of assessment are increased by reason of anything which happens after the 20th day of September, 1943, the amount of the increase shall be added to the income arising from the office or employment as computed for the purposes of assessment to income tax for the year 1943–44 and charged to tax (including surtax) accordingly, but shall not be taken into account in considering whether any and if so what discharge of tax is to be made under section three of the Income Tax (Employments) Act, 1943."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House is very familiar with this subject. When the original Act; which this Bill continues, was introduced in 1941 there was considerable discussion upon it in the House. It then went before the Committee, and as a result certain recommendations made by that Committee were discussed and considered when the renewal Bill came before the House. The most important change that was made, as the House will remember, was that the number of certificates which could be issued under the original Act was limited to 25. The number of certificates at present issued is 21, but there are only 20 Members because my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Professor A. V. Hill) had two certificates; one was as member of the Advisory Council on Scientific Research and one was as member of the Ordnance Board, and so the number at present is 20.
The House will not, I think, either expect or want from me any exposition of the principles of the Bill or the arguments that were put before it. I can state in a couple of sentences what was the result of the procedure under the Bill. It was to meet the case where the Prime Minister felt that a Member of this House in war-time—and it is a temporary Measure only—could usefully, either in this country or abroad, hold some office. Some are very important full-time offices and others are quite small, part-time affairs. But for this Bill the following dilemma might have arisen; either the Member could not have accepted the appointment and so put himself at the service of the country or he would have had to resign his seat. The certificate issued under this Act enables a Member, if he thinks it right to take the office, to make the suggested contribution to the service of his country without having, as a matter of law, to resign his seat.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Only a few sentences will be needed to explain the attitude of my hon. Friends with regard to this Measure. It is not one that appeals to us, we have never regarded this proposal as very satisfactory, but, during the peculiar circumstances of the war, we recognise that we have to put up with it. That expresses the point tersely. It is not a good plan that the Government should be able to employ Members of Parliament in offices of profit under the Crown, but, owing to the exigencies of present conditions, and as a purely temporary Measure, we are willing to accept it. There is only one thing I should like to say. The peculiarity of these proposals is that although they are all called offices of profit, in some cases there is no profit of any kind attached to them. The House will remember the Measure which had to be introduced for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) and which has been referred to as the "Arthur Jenkins Act." It relieved him of a responsibility incurred, unwittingly, by occupying an office which had brought him in not a single penny, although it was called an office of profit under the Crown. It has been pointed out to me that it is sometimes very embarrassing to a Member of this House if it is published in his own constituency and elsewhere, without any reserve, that he has accepted an


office of profit under the Crown. Perhaps those who are responsible for sending out statements to the Press, and elsewhere, would take that into account and see that it is accompanied by some explanation showing what in fact the office is; otherwise, I am informed that individuals will be subjected to a good deal of annoyance by having that misconstruction put upon the part they are playing. With those few remarks, I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Granville: Before we pass this Bill which is presented to us now as an annual—someone has described it as the Bill for forgotten men—I must say that I am rather surprised that the Attorney-General did not give us more of an explanation, not only with regard to the number of certificates issued but as to the nature of these appointments.

The Attorney-General: They are all laid before the House.

Mr. Buchanan: It is the custom to review the appointments. One does not want, on each occasion, to examine each particular appointment, but this is the annual review of the situation, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have said something in defence of the appointments. This Government seem to do anything they like now because they are a Coalition.

Mr. Granville: I realise that when this legislation was first introduced there was a Debate on the subject and a good deal of it was gone into in open discussion. But this is the third year. We find ourselves year by year authorising these appointments under the certificate of the Prime Minister. As has been said, it may be the case that the appointments are published in the Press, but that does not give us a Parliamentary opportunity of discussing them individually in this House. I would have liked the Attorney-General to give us not only the number of these appointments but a description of them and the functions which the people who fill them are asked to perform. In fact, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider issuing a list of all these Government appointments, where these Ministers are appointed, what work they are doing at the moment, what salary goes with these appointments and how long it is intended now to continue

them. I understand that with regard to the disqualification certificate there is a limit, in the terms of the Bill, which has now become three years and next year will become two years and so on until it is dropped or renewed. But what I would like to know is whether there is a limit to the period of the appointment itself. May I give a simple illustration? Take the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Sir R. Cross), who was Minister of Shipping in this House prior to his appointment to Canberra as I believe a Minister. Now I notice that he is designated High Commissioner, which puts his case on all fours with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald), who occupies a similar function at Ottawa.
It may be, as I have said, that this Bill will expire three years from now. I understand that these appointments were in the nature of emergency war measures. Does that mean that at the end of the European war they will cease in terms of the political appointment or in the terms of the disqualification certificate under this Bill? Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale, who has now become High Commissioner in Australia, will have his appointment continued until after the Japanese war has ended? I would be glad of an answer on that point. Further, are these appointments now to be regarded as Civil Service appointments? Is this particular case to be regarded as an innovation or are these appointments to be regarded as political and ministerial, or are those who have been appointed to assume responsibility for the work which civil servants did before the war, when they were known as commercial attachés in foreign countries or High Commissioners in the capitals of the Dominions? Are the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale to be regarded as Ambassadors within the terms of the Statute of Westminster? What is the relationship between the Governors of each State and the Governor-General in the Dominions who represents matters of the Crown and these political High Commissioners? I give this illustration in order that the Attorney-General may give us some information, because the whole position needs clearing up. We cannot go on year after year merely passing this Bill


as though it were a new part of our political structure.
If these appointments are appointments as political Ministers, does it mean that they are authorised, either with the Governor-General or the Governors of the States, to discuss policy with the Governments in the various Dominions? But more important than that, surely, after three years, we have now reached a point when the constituencies of 21 Members are completely disfranchised by their absence. It is one thing at a time of anxiety of the kind we had in this country in 1940–1941, to do the best we can to overcome certain difficulties in Empire co-operation, before air transport was developed in the Commonwealth as it is at present, but it is quite another thing to go on year by year perpetuating what amounts to the disfranchisement of the constituents of these right hon. Gentlemen. I would like to ask the Government how all the questions that occur from time to time in constituencies are to be dealt with if they mean to continue the appointment of these political Ministers for instance after the end of the war with Japan. We are now in smooth waters, politically. The Government have a tremendous majority in the House. I do not know the exact number of right hon. and hon. Members who are directly or indirectly in the appointment of the Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "About 220."]—and I do not know whether it is a new conception of democratic politics during the war that the Government should have this fixed Majority always in their Parliamentary pocket as it were. But what is to happen if there should be a political crisis in this House? The life of the Government may depend on 21 votes, or even less, and if the Government take upon themselves the responsibility of disfranchising 21 constituencies is not that from their own point of view an unwarrantable risk for them to take? It is time the House got back now to the accepted principles of representative Government. If the Government are to establish this as a permanent feature of our Parliamentary life is it not a matter that ought to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform? It is not good enough to come here every year and introduce

this disqualification Bill for the forgotten men and the 21 disfranchised constituencies. Surely the time has come not to give this Bill its Second Reading but to restore our democracy to its full Parliamentary responsibility.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; and I hope to be short and I hope not to be quarrelsome. I would appeal to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and particularly to the Attorney-General, to think again about possible methods of dealing with this Measure. It passed after a great deal of opposition—in consideration of the circumstances of the time, looking back, I think we may say a surprising degree of opposition—and only after all sorts of assurances about moderation and modification. It was a time of great crisis. Crisis is not a thing that can last for ever, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider whether we have not got now to a new sort of normality. We go on talking and thinking as if normality was the condition of things in 1938, and as if what we have at present were a temporary emergency. You can go on with that sort assumption for two, three or four years, but now we are in the fifth year. This is a kind of normality now—we have to regard the war situation as normality—and we ought to reconsider legislation of this kind with extreme care.
The Greeks had a proverb that the half is greater than the whole. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider whether it is not sometimes true also, that for a Ministerial speech 10 minutes might prove shorter than five. I do not mean to oppose the Bill, because I have not given notice to the Government, and clearly in the circumstances you cannot have this kind of arrangement pulled up with a round turn at 24 hours' notice. But an annual tenure sometimes tends to become a freehold unless now and then a warning is given, and I think this is one of the occasions when we ought to give notice that another year, perhaps, some of us will oppose the Bill unless we get some more explanation than we have had. I was surprised at one sentence which the learned Attorney uttered. Owing to the drafting of the Bill with references to one Act referring to another, in my hurry I have brought in the Act of 1942, whereas what one wants is the 1941 Act. My recollection is that


the Prime Minister is called upon to certify that it is necessary for the prosecution of the war, or words to that effect. We seem to be slipping a long way towards regarding the word "necessary" as a very small word.

The Attorney-General: The words are "required in the public interest."
If it is certified by the First Lord of the Treasury that the appointment of any person, being a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, is required in the public interest for purposes connected with the prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think there is no legal difference between "necessary" and "required". What the Attorney-General said was that the Prime Minister could issue such a certificate whenever, in his judgment, some Member of the House "could usefully hold" a whole-time office or it might be even a part-time office. That is a very different thing from being requisite in the public interest, whenever the Prime Minister thinks it might be convenient. That the Government's principal legal adviser should have slipped into that degree of carelessness, as we are bound to call it, seems to be a very stern alarm to the House that it is time we watched this Bill. I do not want to go into the personal question. We all under-estimate the fitness of others for any official function, and probably every one of us over-estimates the fitness of himself for most functions. It would be importunate if we started going down the list and inquiring why it is requisite for the prosecution of the war that X is to be made commercial attaché at Lima while continuing to represent the populous borough of Mudborough in this House. I propose to leave that sort of question, but I think there are some rather difficult questions, and I think whoever moves the Second Reading of this Bill another year should come prepared to answer all questions which could be put by someone of a more offensive and more naturally independent nature than I have the fortune to possess. I think questions of that sort will before long have to be answered. I think there is one such question which can be asked without personal offensiveness even on this occasion. I think someone on the Front Bench may know the answer to it. Is it not true that a Member of the House having been appointed to one of these situations abroad, at the same moment

there was either, in the possession of the Government, or it may be in the post, a certificate from the Prime Minister that it was requisite that he should continue to be a Member of the House, and in the Treasury or crossing that in the post an application by himself for the Chiltern Hundreds? If anything like that happened—and something like it evidently did happen—this Statute we are reviewing does not so much facilitate carelessness in the use of language, as make the use of language absolutely impossible: certificates cease to have any value whatever. We understand that the Prime Minister's full personal attention must be limited by an urgent order of priorities, but it is the business of the House to insist that the Prime Minister's advisers shall see that he is not betrayed by this legislation into using words in senses which none of us would think defensible in any other connection.

Mr. Shinwell: I am unable to agree with the hon. Member below the Gangway that the absence of several certified hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from our deliberations is calculated to jeopardise the position of the Government. After all, we have a large array of certificated hon. Members present—certificated in another sense. That is not the body of the complaint at all. The hon. Member who spoke last directed attention to the vulnerable spot. It is that this proposal which has now become part of the Statute was conceived in a moment of crisis.
It was accepted by hon. Members as a temporary device. I cannot believe that when the matter came before us originally it was ever anticipated that three years hence we would be called upon to continue the system. The circumstances have undergone a considerable change since the proposal was first before the House. It appears that several of those who had come within the scope of these certificates have now become, in fact, not temporary, but permanent servants of the Crown. There is a case of recent origin to which I venture to direct attention, and, as with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), there is no desire on my part to cast any personal reflections on any of the right hon. Gentlemen concerned. That is not my purpose. I am mindful of the case of the right hon. Gentleman the junior


Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) who was and may still be—because the point has not been clarified—Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. He has recently been seconded—that was the term used—to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration.
An appointment to an embassy abroad might be regarded as of a temporary nature. The ambassador may be recalled at any time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Madrid."] If I might digress for a moment within the bounds of Order I would suggest, very carefully and delicately, that there might be strong objections held by hon. Members to the presence of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) at Madrid, but that is not the point. The point is whether the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government and country at Madrid should also have the privilege of being a Member of this House which he does not actually serve, at any rate in a practical sense, because of his absence. I leave that aside because I do not want to raise any of the political questions involved. I return, therefore, to the position of the right hon. Gentleman who was at the Ministry of War Transport and is now engaged with U.N.R.R.A. That surely is a different case.

The Attorney-General: It does not come under the Bill. There is no certificate and that appointment is not an office under the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman is in the service of U.N.R.R.A., so that he would not be affected by this Bill.

Mr. A. Bevan: That is a dodge.

The Attorney-General: I resent that accusation and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. I only intervened because I thought my hon. Friend would like to know that an appointment under U.N.R.R.A. would not come under this Bill. I was not objecting to his discussing it.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to withdraw. I said that it was a dodge. What I mean is this. The appointment certainly does not come under the Bill, but it means that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is deprived of the services of a Member who may be on the other side of the Atlantic,

in an organisation lasting for five or six years.

Mr. Shinwell: I was about to make a similar observation, without suggesting that there was any dodge about it. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), will acquit me of making any suggestion that there is any dodge behind the proposal. [Interruption.] I am entitled to express my opinion. When I see a dodge I know it. I have sufficient experience of hon. Members to know when to detect a dodge, and when to understand that no dodge is intended. I was about to observe that a rather serious situation is evolving. My right hon. and learned Friend says that the appointment of the right hon. Member for Oxford University to U.N.R.R.A. is not an appointment to an office of profit under the Crown. On the other hand, we subscribed £80,000,000 to U.N.R.R.A. this year. I find it difficult to see the distinction between an office of profit under the Crown and an office which is supported by the Crown out of funds provided by the Imperial Exchequer. While that is not necessarily a dodge, it shows a lack of understanding, and I should welcome a clearer explanation of the point from my right hon. and learned Friend. He ought to tell us explicitly whether the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Oxford University is an appointment of profit under the Crown or is excluded from that category because we give a grant of only £80,000,000 towards the funds of U.N.R.R.A. If my right hon. and learned Friend says that this appointment is excluded from this Bill, surely we are entitled to ask whether it is desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should retain his seat in this House and at the same time accept an appointment, with the consent of the Government, which excludes him for a long time from the deliberations of this Assembly. He has become, in fact, a civil servant in a permanent capacity. Surely in these circumstances we cannot agree to accord him the privileges that are ordinarily open to hon. Members. These points have to be cleared up.
There is the additional point raised by my hon. Friend below the gangway. Take the case of the right hon. Gentleman the


Member for Rossendale (Sir R. Cross). He was a Member of the Government as Minister of Economic Warfare and Minister of Shipping before we created the Ministry of War Transport. He was sent to Australia as our representative there. The position was changed, but no notification was given to this House, and there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is in precisely the same position as the High Commissioners for Australia, Canada and New Zealand who are resident in this country. The Governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand did not accord to their High Commissioners the privilege we are according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale. [An HON. MEMBER: "The South African Government does."] The South African Government is peculiar in many ways. The point is that, in the circumstances, it is not right that my right hon. and learned Friend should push this Measure through the House without according to hon. Members an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation. It is not a light matter. While I would not go so far—it may not please some of my hon. Friends behind me, but we cannot please everybody in this world—[Interruption.] Well, I can accept criticism.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member keeps a pretty good balance all the same.

Mr. Shinwell: I would say to my hon. Friend that a little more balance would not do him any harm. After all is said and done, it is a very great privilege to be a Member of this House, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have to choose what they want. If they want to go abroad to represent this country they ought to disclaim the right of representing their constituencies in this assembly, and if they want that right, they must deny themselves the privilege of going abroad. It seems to me that, in all the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should say to us: "We will carry this on a little longer, but our intention is to review the whole situation, and give the House an opportunity of deciding what shall be done."

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of procedure. We did not start this discussion until an hour ago. Is it the intention of the Government to conclude this business to-day? If so, do they wish

to do so after less than two hours' discussion of a very important matter, on which large numbers of Members wish to speak? Is it your intention, Mr. Speaker, to accept a Motion for the Closure?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has no responsibility in that matter. In an hour's time I shall make up my own mind, having heard the discussion, and the responsibility for that decision will be mine.

Mr. Bevan: I accept that it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is also my liberty to make representations and it is within your power to accept them or not to do so. May I, then, ask the Leader of the House whether he intends to press for the Bill to-day?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I certainly propose to follow the normal practice which is to see how the Debate goes. I very much hope that we can get the Bill. Some observations will be made on behalf of the Government before we ask the House to come to a decision.

Sir Stanley Reed: I should like to associate myself with the protest against the manner in which the Bill has been presented, although I would not like to say that the Attorney-General was rather casual in his presentation of it. I know that he is quite incapable of treating the House in any such spirit. I will ask hon. Members to recall to their memories the circumstances in which the Act was first passed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has said that the Bill was accepted with reluctance; I go further, and say that it was accepted with extreme reluctance. Hon. Members did so because the Bill was a breach of a tradition closely associated with the prestige of this House. Those who were present throughout the Debate will know very well that the unofficial title of that Bill was the "MacDonald Relief Bill." Since then, the Act has been used to cover 21 appointments.
I say, frankly, that if the Attorney-General was compelled to bring all those appointments within the terms of the Act, with all his legal knowledge and forensic ability, it would be difficult to satisfy this House that the strict terms of the Act had been observed. Hon. Members have


said that one result of the passing of the Act was that constituencies have been unrepresented. If the Attorney-General will read the list of appointments which have been made under the Act, he will find that it is not a question only of representation of the constituencies; it is also a question of adding to the number of placemen.
If the Bill were pressed to a Division I should, without hesitation, go into the Lobby against it, as a protest first against the manner in which it has been placed before the House, and in the second place, against the use which has been made of it to cover appointments which were never contemplated when these exceptional powers were given to the Government of the day. I will content myself with asking the Attorney-General whether, in presenting the Bill another time, he can see that, before we are asked to renew the Measure, the House is made acquainted with every appointment that has been made under it, the reasons for the appointment, and the special reasons which have made necessary these exceptional measures.

Mr. Bellenger: It is a measure of the way the House has been treated by the Prime Minister, that the Bill is in the hands of the Attorney-General. It is not a legal matter that the Attorney-General has to explain to the House. It should be for the Prime Minister to justify the Measure which he is asking the House once more to endorse, and under which he is able to disperse certain hon. Members of this House overseas, merely by issuing his certificate. It is true that the House has power to reject his advice, but hon. Members know that it is done on the Prime Minister's initiative. It is really that the Prime Minister is depriving the House and the country of the services at home of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom he sends abroad. It may be alleged that that does not amount to much, but there is a suspicion in the minds of some of us that these appointments have been created—some of them did not exist before they were created by the Prime Minister—merely to get rid of hon. Members who have perhaps exceeded their term of office in his Government. However that may be, the Prime Minister is doing himself and the House an injustice

in not attempting, either himself or through the Deputy Prime Minister, to get the approval of the House of Commons to a matter to which, if it is genuinely serving the public interest, the House would readily assent.
Why did the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and who usually supports the Government 100 per cent. raise his voice on this occasion and threaten to go into the Division Lobby against the Bill if a Division were called? It was precisely for the same reason which I have in my mind, that there is a danger of these offices of profit under the Crown being used, as the same method was used in Georgian days, as a method of bribery and corruption. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I say that advisedly, because if the Prime Minister really wanted the services of these hon. Members, he would have kept them as they were originally in his own Government. Think of the coincidence that the majority of these appointments are of Members of one political party only. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. I think I can show——

Mr. Buchanan: Do not the others get their share of the swag?

Mr. Bellenger: There is one hon. Member who belongs to my party, and only one, who has a certificate. I am not asking for any more certificates for any of my colleagues, but I think that if we were to take account of the Members of the Conservative Party who are serving under the Bill, we should find that they are in the majority. I think that the Prime Minister has to give the impression that he is not treating this House with contempt, but it would appear that, in giving to the Attorney-General the job of introducing the Bill to the House, the Prime Minister once again has ignored the feelings of a considerable number of hon. Members, and that is not helping on the war as it should be helped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has raised a point in a manner that I, perhaps, cannot emulate; but I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to appease his susceptibilities about the junior Member for Oxford University. But if the position is as the Attorney-General has stated, namely, that the right hon. Member is no longer, or will presently no longer hold an office of profit


under the Crown, what then is his position? Does he still continue to hold a certificate and if he does not and remains abroad——

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member would like me to tell him what I know about this. The right hon. Member to whom he refers never had a certificate. He was a Parliamentary Secretary and as Parliamentary Secretary he went out for a certain time to the United States. I understand, though I have not the details—I only know what I have heard in the Debate—he has now accepted an appointment under U.N.R.R.A. I do not myself think that an appointment under U.N.R.R.A. is an office of profit under the Crown, although the Crown makes a substantial contribution to U.N.R.R.A. His position would be the same as that of any other hon. Member who accepts an appointment or work, not under the Crown and which, of course, does not disqualify him. [Interruption.] I mean the legal position.

Mr. Shinwell: Since I raised the point, may I put this to my right hon. and learned Friend? If the right hon. Member is operating with an organisation whose funds are partly subscribed by the British Government, surely in that sense he has accepted an office of profit under the Crown? He will probably be paid a salary. From whom does he derive the salary?

The Attorney-General: Not in law. I am quite certain about that. Take a body like the League of Nations. A secretary employed in the League of Nations would not be an office of profit under the Crown in law. I am not saying that you cannot argue about it.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the Crown in fact a party to the appointment as distinct from the case of the League of Nations?

Mr. Speaker: I think the position is quite clear now. So far as the Junior Burgess for Oxford University is concerned, he does not come under this Bill and his position therefore is not concerned.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Is his position really quite so clear as that? The illustration which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave just

now of an officer appointed under the League of Nations would be perfectly clear, but surely an office under U.N.R.R.A. is an office to which the Crown is a party? The Crown is a party to the appointment, the appointment is made in agreement with the Government, and the Government cannot disclaim responsibility for the appointment. In those circumstances surely the right hon. Member would be the holder of an office of profit under the Crown.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in error there if he will allow me to say so. I believe that under this Bill those hon. Members concerned have to have a certificate and the Junior Burgess for Oxford University does not need a certificate.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is this not a case where the Government can escape from the implications of the Bill we are now discussing by voting money to some other body, and then appointing Members of this House or individuals to occupy places on that body?

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. The custom of the House for a long time has been that on Second Reading, wide debate is allowed. The previous Ruling given was not merely that the Second Reading was confined within the limits of the Bill but that expression was allowed in a wide sense. May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? While the right hon. Member we are discussing is not covered by the Bill, is it not perfectly in Order on Second Reading, because of one's desire to widen the scope of the Bill, to argue that he should come within the scope of the issue of a certificate? I put that to you, Sir, as a legitimate point of Order which has been upheld in the past, that while a Bill itself does not cover particular specific points, it is quite in Order on the Second Reading, but not on the Third, to argue its extension to cover a particular issue?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is always correct in his interpretation about Rules of Order. What he has said is true but it would not be in Order to discuss in detail the position of the right hon. Member the Junior Burgess for Oxford University. His case may be used as an illustration and left there.

Mr. Stephen: Would I not be in Order in moving the


Adjournment of the Debate in order to give the Government time to get details and a full understanding as to how much is covered by this Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member might be in Order, but the point is whether or not I would accept the Motion.

Mr. Bellenger: I must confess my line of thought has been somewhat disturbed if not entirely broken. [Interruption.] I would suggest to the House that, although I am the last to deny the force of any humorous remarks coming from my hon. Friend below the Gangway, I think the House ought to treat this matter with considerable seriousness, as indeed it is one of seriousness. The situation which has arisen in relation to the Junior Burgess for Oxford University is even more grave, I think, after the Attorney-General's explanation. If we accept the position, as I think we must, that the right hon. Member is not one of the certificate holders, this fact remains, that here we have a right hon. Gentleman elected to this House to represent his constituents who can calmly go off to America and seek an office which is not an office of profit under the Crown, in which we could perhaps assert that he was doing something in the interests of this country, he can go to an organisation not controlled by this country and the Crown and get a job there which may keep him out of this House and the representation of his constituency for a considerable time. I ask hon. Members opposite in all seriousness whether they think that that person is a fit and proper person as a Member of Parliament to represent his constituency in this House? I do not know what their views are but I do not think that is the case.
There is only one analogy which Members opposite may offer, that is, those Members who happen to be serving with the Armed Forces of the Crown. I think their position is entirely different. The serving Members of the House of Commons can, at least, say that they are taking part in the battles of this country with their comrades from the civilian population who happen to be serving with the Forces. They are undergoing great danger in the majority of cases, and therefore I think that as it has been the custom, from time immemorial, for Members of this House to serve with the Armed Forces of the Crown, we can

accept it as sufficient reason why we should excuse them attendance in this House. But when it comes to a Minister accepting a civilian appointment abroad, I think we ought to draw the line. I would appeal to the fairness and honesty of Members opposite, who are just as much concerned, I believe, to give the appearance to the public—[Interruption]—I am much obliged for the hon. Member's interruption but I hope he will put his point of view in a speech, as I am doing—the appearance to the outside world that we are not reverting to the position which once prevailed, whereby the Crown or Ministers under the Crown could dispense offices of profit like this. We all know the situation which arose at that time with the place men to whom my hon. Friend opposite has referred. I ask the Government seriously to consider the inadvisability of pressing this Bill to a point to-day when they will perhaps force the House to go to a Division. If that situation arises, in spite of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said, some of us at any rate will have to go into the Lobby and record our disapproval of this Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: I want to associate myself with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The Attorney-General, in the main, has confined himself to speaking on Measures which dealt to a great extent with legal matters. This is not a legal Measure; it is primarily a House of Commons Measure, and someone of the standing of the Leader of the House ought to take charge of it. The Attorney-General treated us almost with contempt. Despite the lecture of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), to the effect that we must clothe our words with a good deal of niceness, I still think the House of Commons ought occasionally to allow its Members to say what they think. The speech of the Attorney-General treated us with contempt. He introduced this Bill, raising the gravest issues for the House of Commons, in a speech lasting less than five minutes. He dealt with none of the issues raised, and in his reply he made, I think, one of the worst statements of all. He said that in each individual case we could challenge it. That is true, but I put it to the Leader of the House, as a House of Commons man, that what the


House does not want to do is to make this Bill a challenge to any particular man. That is what the Attorney-General asks us to do.

The Attorney-General: I am sure the hon. Member is mixing me up with someone else. I never said that. I think that when the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) was speaking, I pointed out that the certificates were all presented to the House; but I am sure that I never said that on each occasion the House could challenge it. I do not think that the House could.

Mr. Buchanan: Let me take up what the Attorney-General now admits. He said that on each occasion the certificate was set before the House. The excuse has been given that on each occasion it could be challenged. What the House of Commons does not want to do is to challenge each case, because then it is made a challenge to that particular Member. Most of the reasons which were given to the House at the beginning were attractive. The right hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. Jowitt), whose job in the Government I am not quite sure of—I know his title, but I do not know his job—was in charge of, or was associated with, the original Bill. One of the reasons which he gave to convince those of us who have not the deep insight into political movements that he has—[Interruption.] It is the truth; there is no use our blinking it. One of the reasons he gave was that a large number of anomalies arise, and all sorts of things could be construed as being offices under the Crown, and, therefore, this Bill was needed. He illustrated this by referring to Members serving on committees such as salvage committees, etc. That may have been a reason for tiding us over, but it was no reason for allowing that temporary situation to become a permanent situation. Another reason that was given was that, in the interest of the war effort, this Bill was required for certain men whose ability was outstanding, such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. M. MacDonald) and all the others, whom, in the interests of the unity of the nation and of winning the war, the House of Commons could not afford to lose, because the Government needed their advice. As the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has

said, that temporary situation has now passed. Let us take the case of Lord Burghley, who was the Member for Peterborough. He was given a definite appointment for the Government, and the Prime Minister issued his certificate. He showed the hollowness and the sham of it by resigning, and the Government went on without any change. Had the same thing happened in connection with any other Member, the position would have been the same.

Sir Herbert Williams: Lord Burghley had a certificate when he was working in the Ministry of Supply. He resigned when he was appointed as one of His Majesty's representatives overseas.

Mr. Buchanan: Let not the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) become, like the hon. Member for Seaham, too much of an apologist for the Government. The position is as I said. A certificate for the job he was going to was granted, to bring him into the scope of the Measure, and Lord Burghley rejected it. Now we are faced with a situation which in the old House of Commons days would have been treated with scorn and derision. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Eve (Mr. Granville) about the 21 being necessary for a Division, because I know that if there was a critical time and the Prime Minister was in charge the Division would be postponed until he had got the 21 back. You have 21 persons, each in the service of the Crown and paid by the Crown, and at any date they are liable to be increased in number. As time goes on, they will not diminish. In pre-war days, this situation sometimes arose and frequently hon. Members received appointments in this country. I remember Lord Robert Cecil——

Hon. Members: Viscount Cecil.

Mr. Buchanan: He or his brother—one of the Cecils. I remember him when he occupied a seat in the other House. On that occasion, he was given an appointment in this country. He could have carried on, I have no doubt and have served in the House to some extent, but, without any kind of pressure being made, he automatically resigned his seat. There was a good deal of discussion at the time as to whether he needed to do so or not, but he did it, and I say, quite frankly,


that the situation now arising is one which—and I say this without criticism of the Attorney-General's few minutes' speech—might have been different in the days when we were divided into a Government and an Opposition. But really, when you have no Opposition in the official sense, it is all the more necessary that the Government should explain their Measures in full. In the old days, the Opposition would wring concessions from the Government. To-day, because you have no official Opposition, you are treating this House in a less serious fashion than you would otherwise have done. It is not proper, and it is not becoming of a great officer like the Attorney-General holding high judicial rank to do so. I do not say that in any derogatory sense, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman will hold distinguished office, but I say it was not becoming of him to do it.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to excuse myself to the House, but I would like to say that this is the third time I have been in charge of this Bill. Last year I made a short speech and only one hon. Member spoke. We thought it might suit the convenience of the House, which is aware of the purpose of this matter, if I introduced it shortly.

Mr. Buchanan: Last year, when you had no opposition, and at a stage of the war much more critical than to-day, some of us thought that the House should not unduly embarrass the Government and because there was no opposition you got away with it 12 months ago. To-day, political alignments are altered and opposition is inclined to grow. I ask the Government and particularly the Leader of the House—who, I think, in some ways, is doing his job as Leader of the House as well as any man in my 21 years here has done it—seriously to reconsider this Bill. Nobody can justify now the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. M. MacDonald). Not one single reason can be given. Nearly every hon. Member on the other side is a business man or is associated with business. Nearly everyone is associated with successful businesses. How did they do it? They run successful businesses and no one of them has any right in the House of Commons, in spending public money, to treat this House or the country less favourably

than he would treat his own private business. That is what you are doing to-day.
If it was in your own business, and there was to be an expenditure of £5,000 or £10,000 a year, before you would agree to it you would ask for it to be justified. But what did you do here? You passed a Bill and you did not seek to justify it. How can you say that the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty is necessary either for the winning or losing of the war, or that he has got one inch of political standing outside that of the normal Member of Parliament? Can you make a case for his being specially treated? There may have been a case, perhaps, on political expediency, because he represented a party and it was necessary to keep that party quiet for the time being. That may have been the reason then, but to-day the reason has gone and the party has gone, and you have Ross and Cromarty unrepresented in this House. There are problems affecting Scotland and affecting the Highlands, and the district is unrepresented by its Member. In Lancashire, a seat called Rossendale, a prominent seat in that county, is unrepresented. Nobody is going to tell me that the Conservative Party to-day, after two or three years, cannot now produce somebody of great capacity to take that seat and fulfil the functions associated with it.
The reasons given for this are flimsy and not a credit to those who advance them. I want to warn the Leader of the House that one of the things which is causing great concern in this House is the increasing number of paid Cabinet Ministers, Under-Secretaries and other semi-officers of the Crown. I make no criticism of many hon. Members who bold original offices and all kinds of other things at the present time, such as Ministry of Information lectureships and B.B.C. lectureships, all of which bring profit to the hon. Member. I can speak freely, because I have never had any. I say, frankly, that a House of Commons that gets to that stage is not a good thing for this country or for the democratic people in it, and I ask the Leader of the House to review the whole situation, not merely the 21 hon. Members affected, but the whole question of holding office of the Crown, and I trust that the Government will take the necessary action thereon.

Mr. A. Bevan: I think perhaps I have some justification for asking the House to listen to me for a moment or two because, when the original proposal came before the House I was then told—the Prime Minister was in charge—that we were going to desist from pressing it in the Division Lobby. Hon. Members will recall that we managed to secure the procedure which is now being continued in this Bill, by a protest in this House, because we insisted that this Bill should be an annual Bill and that the power should be renewed, so as to keep it all the time within the province of the House. We did that in difficult circumstances when many of us were bitterly criticised because we opposed the Government. It is only one of the small contributions to Parliamentary procedure which the critics have made from time to time in the course of the last three or four years.
I would like to say a word to my own Front Benchers in this matter. It is perfectly true that the Attorney-General had every right to suppose that he could clear up everything in this Bill by a few perfunctory sentences. Only a few perfunctory sentences came from the person in charge of the Labour Party. We can no longer rely—and this has been true for a few years—upon the representatives on this Bench to defend either Parliament or the principles of the party to which they belong, and the sooner this is stated the better. It is a disgraceful exhibition of incompetence on the part of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Government Departments are now being corrupted by big business, and the House of Commons is being corrupted by the Government. That is the situation. Question Time after Question Time reveals that the British Government and British politics are sinking as low as American and French politics.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the House of Commons has been corrupted by the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering what these remarks of the hon. Member had to do with this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am saying—because the same sentence has been used three times by

three different Members—that, of course, it corrupts the House of Commons. That is the whole point. Why is a certificate needed? A certificate is needed because of the constitutional position that Members of the House of Commons could not be appointed to positions of profit under the Crown. The whole point is to protect the House of Commons from corruption. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is either boiling over with the lava of indignation or sunk in the quagmire of levity. There are 21 Members of this House of Commons at the present time concerned under this particular Bill who are drawing lavish salaries—(HON. MEMBERS: "No")—and expense accounts, and expense accounts are often better than salaries in these days. Do not let us have any nonsense. I can talk frankly about this. There are too many hon. Members who are having expenses accounts with the Government at the present time. So serious has it become that I cannot get from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an account of the number of Members in this House on expense accounts. I wrote a letter to the Treasury asking how many persons were having these accounts and I received the reply of 21. I had difficulty in getting the number of persons who are Members of this House in the Armed Forces. I was first of all told that the Secretary of State for War did not know the figures. I had to persist. I cannot get from the Government the extent to which Members of this House are now receiving financial benefits from the Crown.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Does the hon. Member include those who are in the Services?

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, I was specifically differentiating them. I said that I could not get from the Government an account of the number and the identity of Members of this House who are on expense accounts. The Government will not give the information. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) was in charge of the Air Cadets on an expenses account. There are a large number of regional commissioners and persons attached to Government Departments, and no one knows who they are. The Government are now using secrecy and subterfuge to pour out public funds in uncheckable fashion to Members of Parliament. If they want to understand why the House


of Commons has sunk so low and they cannot get healthy and effective Debates, it is because they are buying Members of Parliament day by day.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of Order. The hon. Member, or somebody else, made a suggestion that people who spoke at Ministry of Information meetings received expenses accounts which corrupted them.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say so.

Mr. Woodburn: I have spoken at several Ministry of Information meetings and on no occasion have I received any more than my own railway fare. Therefore I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is wrong of Members of Parliament to convey the impression to the public that Members of Parliament who speak for the Ministry of Information are corrupted.

Mr. Buchanan: I use the B.B.C. and I intend to use it again. B.B.C. speakers are paid and I challenge the hon. Member to say that he did not receive a fee, and I challenge him that he did not take it. Let him get up and say "No" to that.

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that the hon. Member said the Ministry of Information.

Mr. Bevan: I made no statement about the Ministry of Information and I do not suggest for a moment that the fidelity of the hon. Member to the Government has been purchased. It is not necessary to buy it; it is there. I made no suggestion at all, and all I am saying—and the House must really be serious about this matter—is that it is a very dangerous state of affairs when a Member of this House cannot obtain information from the Government as to how many Members of the House are able to draw from public funds on expenses accounts when they are attached to Departments. Is not that serious? I have asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on two occasions and he has refused to give me the information. We do not know when a man gets up to speak. It used to be an old practice that when a man got up he had to disclose his interests. Some Members of this House have suffered public dishonour merely because they forgot to say it, but when a man gets up on these benches to support the Government you do not know what

Government money is in his pocket. That is a very serious state of affairs.
The Prime Minister has been giving his certificates like confetti. He distributes them to relieve himself of political embarrassment. Take, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper). He is always in office. Nobody knows why. He gets one office after another. He leaves them all with a worse reputation than when he entered them. He went out to the East and came back and made a report. Why is he kept in the Government—because he made a report on Singapore which they did not want to hear? When he came home, he was appointed to another job, in charge of the Prime Minister's Gestapo. He was made chairman of the Swinton Committee. You cannot ask how the money is spent without the Prime Minister becoming apoplectic. He got £5,000 a year for being in charge of the Swinton Committee—spying—not in charge of military intelligence but of civil intelligence. There are men in uniforms, thousands of them, drawing funds from this country and Members have not the remotest idea how much money is being spent or who is getting it. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to North Africa. His services were so essential that he had to be sent to North Africa and got the Prime Minister's certificate. The "Evening Standard" reported two or three months after his urgent appointment that he had not yet taken up his duties because his villa was not ready for him in North Africa. Was there ever such obscene frivolity in the use of public funds?
Take the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). He has been in Spain. Does one single hon. Member seriously suggest that a member of the Diplomatic Corps could not do the job and do it even better? What has he got for us? He cannot even get ships out of the hands of the Spaniards. Does anybody in this House—I ask hon. Members on the other side—seriously believe that the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea as our representative in Madrid re-assures public opinion here or anywhere? As a matter of fact, his presence in Madrid is the cause of great anxiety to every informed opinion in Great Britain. [Interruption.] I will take a challenge at a by-election.

Mr. Speaker: I think that now the hon. Member is going on to discuss foreign affairs.

Mr. Buchanan: One of the certificates issued is to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Madrid [Laughter]—I mean the Ambassador. Surely the hon. Member has a right to ask that that gentleman should not have a certificate, and to show that he is unworthy of a certificate.

Mr. Bevan: The point I was striving to address myself to is that it is an extremely undesirable thing that Members of this House should be too much in the pay of the Executive. The power of the Executive to confer financial benefits upon Members of the House of Commons should be carefully scrutinised. It affects the very citadel of the British Constitution. It is the issue on which the biggest battles about the British Constitution have been fought, and we are throwing aside frivolously—[Interruption.] Really, the hon. Member should control himself.

Mr. Bull: I have been controlling myself for a very long time.

Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. Member's constituents will realise the extent to which he is safeguarding the principles of the British Constitution.

Mr. Bull: Yes, and I can say that even without pointing.

Mr. Bevan: The situation is serious in this respect. If you go through the list of the Members of this House now, you will see that practically one-third of the House of Commons is associated directly or indirectly with the Executive—200 Members. Before the Government begins, it can reckon upon 200 Members supporting it in the Lobby because of financial interest or the expectation of financial interest. Ninety-six Members of the House of Commons—I went through the list yesterday—are directly in the Government. If you include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, it is two-thirds of the House. [Interruption.] I could prove conclusively that there are Parliamentary Private Secretaries who obtain considerable benefit.

Mr. McEntee: The hon. Gentleman makes rather serious charges about Parliamentary Private Secretaries that they receive financial benefits. If he says that, will he name them?

Mr. Bevan: I say that Parliamentary Private Secretaries receive services that are of financial value. [Interruption] I do not say all Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I say what is well known to Members of this House—do not be mealy-mouthed about it—that Parliamentary Private Secretaries, many of them, attached to Government Departments do obtain very valuable services.

Hon. Members: What are they?

Mr. Bevan: The use of secretaries.

Mr. Hogg: "Interest" is the word.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say "interest." I said "benefit."

Mr. Hogg: Since the hon. Member has challenged me, it will be within the recollection of the House that he said that Members with financial interest could be relied on by the Government in the Lobby. Those were his very words. I will not accept his statement that he did not use those words.

Mr. Bevan: Hansard to-morrow morning will decide who is right, the hon. Member or myself. In my recollection, what I said was that the Government could rely on practically one-third of the House of Commons being attached to them directly or indirectly by financial benefit. The Tory Party cannot be expected to be angry about getting public money. We know that very well. That is the only interest they have in politics. That is the only interest they have ever had in politics. The only time when they can be relied upon to defend the purity of public administration is when they are afraid one lot of interests are getting too much against other interests. Then they intervene to stop anybody getting it. Look up their leader's past speeches because he said it long ago much better than I can say it.
With this I want to finish what I have to say. I say I should advise against this Bill being given a Second Reading to-day. I think it ought not to be given a Second Reading to-day, and that we ought to have a better opportunity of considering it. I say we have reached a very low point when the Attorney-General, without giving any justification for the Bill, can move it in a perfunctory manner, when a public Bill can be passed without proper examination and when


Members of this House can be sent all over the world without the slightest justification. You cannot possibly have a sound, wholesome House of Commons unless the powers of the Executive are subject to very much greater check in this matter than they are at present. We ourselves ought to take every opportunity of making the Government justify the use of public funds in this manner.

Mr. Eden: I only want to intervene for a moment on account of the clock. I intended, of course, to reply to this Debate to-day but I am conscious that many points have been raised and I cannot do that adequately or fairly to the House in the time that remains. If it were agreeable to the House I suggest the Debate may continue until the usual hour and be resumed on the next Sitting Day after essential Business has been taken so as to enable me, on behalf of the Government, to answer the various points that have been raised more effectively than I can do with justice to the House in this very short time.

Mr. Boothby: On a point of Order. Could I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman regards the Public Works Loans Bill as essential Business?

Mr. Eden: I shall have to look at the Business in the light of this discussion.

Mr. N. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he will take the Courts (Emergency Powers) (Scotland) Bill as well on the next Sitting Day or will he leave it till next week?

Mr. Eden: I do not want to commit myself about the next Sitting Day. I will make an announcement at the end of Business. The whole point is that I want to be able to make a full reply to what has been said because I consider that to be the duty of the Government.

Mr. Maxton: Someone who took part in the Debate congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his skilful leadership of the House. I consider the proposal he has just made is a very fine example of that. On more than one occasion I have given him my opinion on Friday Sittings; they provide an occasion for the Government to get rid of all their inconvenient little oddments.

I warned him on two previous occasions in the House that the Debate on this issue could not be looked forward to as a mere formality and I am afraid I was right in that prophecy. I also approached the Treasurer of the Household on the matter and, if I had thought there was going to be so much feeling, I would have had effrontery to approach the Chief Whip himself. I used the usual channels to the extent I felt I was entitled to do, and I asked the Government to take this a little more seriously. In spite of my work, they sent the Attorney-General in, obviously insufficiently briefed. I hope he will not mind my saying that. I know he can do much better than he did to-day, I have seen him do it. I went to the Vote Office to ask for any White Papers that would be germane to this Debate, to find out who are the members of our legions of lost ones at the present moment, and particulars as to what they are doing. But there was not a thing in the Vote Office to guide the House. This is a serious business.
I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) in the somewhat drastic job he has done to-day. I think, on the whole, the House of Commons is a pretty clean place, but I can see all the tendencies which, if they are not checked, could make it something different. It would be vicious if we continued this sort of thing. Now, in addition to the introduction of this legislation, after some Parliamentary education, there was a Select Committee upon it which sat over a period of weeks, presided over by a very respected Member of this House, now Lord Hemingford. We went into the constitutional issue. I was a member of that Committee and attended its sittings very assiduously, and we went carefully into all the points which raised the biggest constitutional issues connected with the status of Parliament. It was held at a time when it was very inconvenient to be in London, things were not comfortable, and general attendance at the House of Commons was not so usual then as it is now. But that Committee sat under these conditions and produced a Report and, while not enthusiastic, the general attitude was that this condition should only be maintained in the present circumstances and that it should be very temporary.
I want the House to ask itself if we have not now reached a stage when not


only have external things become less pressing than they were, but when internal things, the definite work of this House, is becoming more and more important. In the period of time that will be granted in this Bill, there will fall to be made fateful, far-reaching and important decisions. That justifies this House in doing what it has the right to do, to say to its constituent Members, "Your service in this House is your primary duty. We thank you for what you have done in the far-flung parts of the Empire, we thank you for the various difficulties you have helped to tide over in these far-away places, but here, right in Westminster at the centre of things, is now the place where your services are wanted. Thank you very much, boys, but come home now." That ought to be the attitude of the House, and the Second Reading of this Bill should not be granted without some clear and definite understanding that the Government, who must be our executives in this matter, have a similar understanding as to the way in which the House itself regards it.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am sure the whole House will be thankful to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken for the moderate and wise way in which he has put a case which deserves to be put, in striking and painful contrast to the speech we listened to immediately before his. Serious and shameful charges were made in the course of that speech. We are not concerned to discuss them at length; it is sufficient to say that it must be obvious to the Government that they have produced a Bill which is open to criticism on quite different lines, namely, those which have just been put forward. Perhaps before answering, my right hon. Friend would give us some assurances to the manner in which this Bill is going to be administered in the future, for how long is it going on, how many appointments are to be made, is there a limit to those appointments, is there to be an inquiry as to the types of offices which are considered—a discrimination for instance, between those beyond the seas and those which enable a Member to work at home—and is there to be a distinction between the members of the Forces and others? Those are questions with which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal, without accepting for a moment the view of all those who criticise this Bill, or at all

supporting the charges of a disgraceful nature.

Mr. Bevan: Well, you answer them.

Mr. Maxton: Let us consider them at some other time.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he comes to reply to bear in mind that no fewer than 21 Members of Parliament are affected under this Bill. He indicated that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir Samuel Hoare) does not come under this the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir Arthur Salter) and others as well. Apparently, about one-thirtieth of the House of Commons is concerned and one is entitled, I think, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any limit, because one can visualise the membership of the House of Commons being posted away all over the place.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

CIVIL DEFENCE AND FIRE SERVICES (KING'S BADGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security on the Front Bench, and to say how pleased we are about her recovery. In a way this is my maiden speech, not, of course, in the House but on the Adjournment. I want to raise the question of the King's Badge for wounded and discharged firemen of the National Fire Service and members of the Civil Defence Service who are invalided out on pension on the same terms as members of the so-called Fighting Services. Only yesterday we were told that the Prime Minister had said that the Home Guard were just as much part of the Army as the Brigade of Guards. Yet if a fireman or Home Guard is wounded in action and is invalided out he gets no silver badge, whereas the ordinary soldier will get one. People are apt to forget the blitz period in Britain when members of our Civil Defence Service, ambulance drivers,


police, wardens and all the rest of them went into action night after night as soon as the bombs began to fall. Many were killed and many were injured. If there were troops in barracks in the area they were ordered to the shelters. If a soldier in the shelters was wounded and was invalided out he would get his badge, but a fireman who was wounded and perhaps crippled fighting the fires above him would receive nothing at all to show that he had served and suffered for his King and country.
I served for four years as a member of the A.F.S., as a part-timer, and I remember that I was once called to a military barracks, which had been hit in a raid, to help put out fires. A soldier injured and invalided out of the Army in such a raid would get his badge, but a fireman injured in similar circumstances would not. Even in hospital this differentiation continues. When I was wounded in 1941 I was sent to a hospital where the wards were full of wounded troops from Dunkirk. In the same wards were a number of firemen injured in the blitz. Every soldier used to receive a small bottle of beer a day, but the firemen merely got water, presumably because they used so much water on the fire and so were accustomed to it. Why should there be that difference between ex-members of the Civil Defence Service and ex-soldiers? If they have both been crippled doing the same sort of job I do not see why a wounded man who is not a member of the Armed Forces should not have something to wear in his lapel to show that he has suffered for his country. After all, a trade unionist wears his badge and is justly proud of it. A man who has bled for his country and will suffer for it for the rest of his life has every right to wear his badge and be as proud of it as a trade unionist.
I should like to ask the hon. Lady if the next-of-kin of a fireman killed in action gets a certificate which he can frame. I have a certificate for my brother, who was killed in action in the last war. It hangs in my hall. I do not know if the Civil Defence Services get anything like that. I hope that, if they do not, it will be looked into. I also want to protest against the way I have been pushed from pillar to post. When I first put a Question to the Home Secretary he referred me to an answer by

the Prime Minister which had nothing to do with it. I put a Question to the Prime Minister and he referred me back to the Home Secretary. When I put it again the Under-Secretary gave me exactly the same answer. When I protested, he bad a second shot and referred me to another Question of my own on medals, which had nothing to do with it. I shall probably be told that I can raise the matter in another Debate, but it is a question of catching the Speaker's eye. I once tried to speak in an Army Debate and sat from 12 o'clock till half-past two, that is 14 hours, with only a sandwich to eat. I sat through the next day and did not get called on. I see no reason why I shall be called next time, and therefore I am trying to stake a claim.

Mr. Reakes: I rise to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's claim. I am very familiar as, no doubt, are other Members, with the wonderful work that has been achieved by members of the National Fire Service, and there is in my opinion no reason whatever why that gallant service should not be recognised along the lines that have been indicated. There may be difficulties attached to it but, after all, the Civil Defence Forces have rendered yeoman service in all parts of the country. I can speak from personal observation of the services they rendered on Merseyside during the dock raids, when many of them were injured and some were unable to continue their service owing to their injuries. It is only a matter of justice that they should be recognised, and I strongly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman's claim.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is suffering under a sense of grievance. If he has only put the Motion down in order to catch the Speaker's eye, I can only say that I am willing warmly to back his claim, if that is of any use, when the appropriate Debate comes on; but the fact is, as we have said already in reply to Questions, that it really is not possible to consider badges or decorations, or the whole question of recognition, separately for each Force. The Prime Minister has promised a Debate on the whole subject of war decorations and medals. Therefore, I can only say to the hon. and gallant Member that it is not


possible for me to-day to give him any definite answer on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I can only say that the whole subject is being fully considered and that a reply will be given to him, or to anyone else who raises this matter, and a full statement will be made when it is debated.
I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. and gallant Member, particularly as we at the Ministry of Home Security have a very warm recollection of his own gallant conduct when he was a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service and suffered as a consequence. I will, therefore, just give him the line on which our thoughts are working, while making it clear that no final decision has yet been reached. The real difficulty is to delimit the field and decide who is to have these decorations. The Home Office and the country generally are fully aware of the gallant conduct of our Civil Defence and National Fire Service and the police during the blitz, which is not by any means ended, as some hon. Members occasionally think. We have recently had raids, small, I admit, but raids which have called forth gallant conduct. We wish in every way to make it clear that these Services are fully appreciated by the Government. In considering whether to grant badges, however, we must work on a definite procedure. While it is fairly simple in connection with the Armed Forces, because the whole procedure of enlistment and discharge is on a formal basis, the difficulty is that in the Civil Defence Service there is no fixed minimum medical standard for discharge, and the discharge procedure does not provide for certification to the Ministry of Pensions, except in a limited number of cases where a disability pension is awarded.
It would be quite easy if the badge were limited only to those who were discharged because of disability, but many men may have been discharged from the Civil Defence Forces because we are having to cut down and to release men as the need for their services becomes limited. Therefore, it would not be fair to say that only those who actually came under a disability pension—and it would be a very small number—should get the badge and that others should not. If the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member were adopted, it would mean that the Ministry of Pensions would have to examine all past cases and consult the local authorities to see whether

discharge had followed the award of an injury allowance. I want to remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Civil Defence Forces are not national forces, and are not under our national control. They are employed by individual local authorities. This would involve a considerable amount of work, not only for us, but for the very over-burdened staffs of the local authorities.
We also have the difficulty that the recipients of the badge might rejoin the Services in a different rank, and the withdrawal of the badge would be quite impracticable. There is the further difficulty that awards could not be confined to the whole-timers. The hon. and gallant Member indicated the gallant rôle that the part-timers have played. If we admitted the part-timers in Civil Defence and N.F.S., we would also have to bring in the Fire Guard, and there are several millions of those. If we included the local authority Fire Guard we could not then exclude the Fire Guard and the A.R.P. squads at business premises. That would begin to involve the Ministry of Pensions in an appalling amount of work, in correspondence with hundreds of firms, whose evidence might be unobtainable or unreliable. Moreover, if we accepted award on this basis it would lead to a demand to admit people who had been discharged from ordinary industrial employment because they were injured in doing very gallant work during the raids, as many of them have been. The hon. and gallant Member may ask: "Why not?" But if we followed those lines, although we realise how fine our Civil Defence Service has been during blitz and in times of danger, we should get to the stage when it would he difficult to exclude any members of the community from the proposed badge, and when the badge itself would become meaningless.
I do not want to seem to be presenting merely a reductio ad absurdum answer. We have really gone into this matter carefully, but the position, so far as Civil Defence is concerned, is very difficult indeed because it is a local authority service. With the police and the N.F.S., and particularly the N.F.S., these practical difficulties do not apply with the same force. It would be quite easy to apply the proposed badge to the N.F.S. and police forces or no more difficult than it is to the Armed Forces, because all of them are on a national basis. The


difficulty that arises is whether you could grant a badge to the N.F.S. and not to the Civil Defence wardens who work side by side with the N.F.S., or to the Fire Guard, who, in recent raids, have done magnificent service in putting out incendiary bombs and thus have made it unnecessary for the N.F.S. to be called to fires which otherwise would have needed them.
I have given this general idea of our difficulties, so that the hon. and gallant Member can see that it is not just carelessness or lack of sympathy on our part. The sympathy is fully there. It is only that we see practical difficulties before us. I think I have at least done this for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have provided him more or less with the Department's case on what he is anxious to have done. Therefore, if he is able to catch either your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or that of Mr. Speaker, he will be able to answer the case point by point. I, for one, will be very glad indeed if he will do so, because we have an open mind on the matter and have not come yet to a final conclusion.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised another point. It is a question of the next-of-kin. I think he has raised a real point there. If a man or woman has died in a raid their loved ones have been bereft just as much as if they had died in Libya, or Italy, or where you will. I give him my personal undertaking that I will have a word with the Home Secretary about

this, and see what can be done in the matter. The difficulties which I have raised do not apply in these very definite cases, although of course we should have to deal with the matter through the local authorities. That is the general line, and I hope very much that, when the matter is fully debated, we shall be able, perhaps not to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman all he wants, but to meet him on one or two of the points.

Mr. Tom Brown: Might I ask the hon. Lady if it is correct that she said in her reply that the Home Office have no jurisdiction over the N.F.S.?

Miss Wilkinson: No, I said quite the opposite. What I said was that the Civil Defence services are local authority services and the N.F.S. is a national service. We have a direct control over the N.F.S., exactly the same as the War Office has over the Army, but the Civil Defence services are different because they are local authority services.

Mr. Brown: Civil Defence is totally different from the N.F.S. I understood that in her reply the hon. Lady said that the Home Office had no jurisdiction over the N.F.S. I want that making clear.

Miss Wilkinson: I think my hon. Friend has quite misunderstood me. The Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security have complete control over the N.F.S. because it is a national service.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.